Franois Hollande, accordez l #39;asile politique Edward Snowden - Soutien la ptition de l #39;Express
Ptition de l #39;Express soutenue par Jean-Charles Bourquin, Kalki pour que la France permette Edward Snowden de s #39;y installer: http://www.change.org/fr/p%C3%A9titions/fran%C3%A7ois-hollande-accor...
By: Bourquin Jean-Charles
#39;Everything has changed #39; - Wikileaks explains Snowden #39;s impact to RT
The revolt against surveillance has gained enormous support from Internet users and was backed by Edward Snowden himself. To discuss the future of whistleblowing and how you can protect yourself...
By: RT
Go here to see the original:
'Everything has changed' - Wikileaks explains Snowden's impact to RT - Video
As the intelligence community continues its assessment of the damage caused by Edward Snowdens leaks of secret programs, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says it appears the impact may be less than once feared because it doesnt look like he [Snowden] took as much as first thought.
Were still investigating, but we think that a lot of what he looked at, he couldnt pull down, Clapper said in a rare interview at his headquarters Tuesday. Some things we thought he got he apparently didnt. Although somewhat less than expected, the damage is still profound, he said.
This assessment contrasts with the initial view in which officials, unsure of what Snowden had taken, assumed the worst including the possibility that he had compromised the communications networks that make up the militarys command and control system. Officials now think that dire forecast may have been too extreme.
Its impossible to assess independently the accuracy of what Clapper said, either about the damage Snowden allegedly caused or its mitigation. Thats one reason why a legal resolution of the case would be so valuable: It would establish the facts.
In the damage evaluation, the intelligence community has established three tiers of material: The first tier is the 300 or so documents that a senior intelligence official said news organizations in the United States or overseas have already published, often with redactions. The second is an additional 200,000 documents the United States believes Snowden or his associates gave to the media.
Its a third tier of documents, which Snowden is assumed to have taken but whose current status isnt known, for which officials have lowered the threat assessment. This batch of probably downloaded material is about 1.5 million documents, the senior official said. Thats below an earlier estimate of 1.77 million documents.
In the months immediately after June 2013, when Snowden began to reveal his cache of National Security Agency documents, U.S. officials said they couldnt be sure what he had seen and downloaded. Now, by piecing together a replication of top-secret files at the time, they have a better idea of what Snowden may have taken.
In Snowdens recent interview with NBC Newss Brian Williams, the former NSA contractor seemed eager to explore a deal that would allow him to return to the United States and face legal proceedings with some sort of negotiated plea agreement.
A senior intelligence official cautioned that any discussion of plea negotiations would be overseen by the Justice Department. He said the comment by NSA Deputy Director Rick Ledgett that there was room for discussions with Snowden reflected Ledgetts personal views only.
Plea negotiations are difficult if you start by saying youre a hero and wanting a parade, the senior official said, dismissing Snowdens characterization of his actions during the NBC interview as patriotic and constitutional. The intelligence community sharply disagrees with that self-assessment.
More:
Edward Snowden took less than previously thought, says ...
hide captionEdward Snowden didn't trust The New York Times with his revelations about the National Security Agency because the newspaper had delayed publishing a story about NSA secrets a decade earlier.
Edward Snowden didn't trust The New York Times with his revelations about the National Security Agency because the newspaper had delayed publishing a story about NSA secrets a decade earlier.
When former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden made the fateful decision to share sensitive documents with reporters revealing secret and mass gathering of the metadata associated with the phone calls made by tens of millions of Americans, he had to figure out which news outfit to trust.
But Snowden already knew the one place he didn't trust: The New York Times. He went instead to reporters working for The Guardian and The Washington Post, each of which posted the first in a series of breathtaking revelations one year ago. In April, the two news organizations shared the Pulitzer Prize for public service.
The episode represents both a sore point and a signal lesson for the new executive editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet.
"It was really painful," Baquet told me just a few hours after the Pulitzer ceremony. "There is nothing harder than, if you are the New York Times, getting beat on a big national security story and to get beat by your biggest overseas competitor and your biggest national competitor, at the same time. It was just painful."
He says the experience has proved that news executives are often unduly deferential to seemingly authoritative warnings unaccompanied by hard evidence.
"I am much, much, much more skeptical of the government's entreaties not to publish today than I was ever before," Baquet said in a wide-ranging interview.
Snowden's choice was the bitter harvest of seeds sown by the Times almost a decade ago. In the fall of 2004, just ahead of the November general elections, the Times' news leadership spiked an exclusive from Washington correspondents James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, disclosing massive warrantless domestic eavesdropping by the NSA.
White House officials had warned that the results of such a story could be catastrophic.
See the original post here:
'New York Times' Editor: Losing Snowden Scoop 'Really Painful'
Patriot or Traitor?
Jimmy Dore discusses about the difference between a patriot and traitor. He compares these differences to Edward Snowden and tries to define Snowdens actions. He also talks about John Kerrys...
By: TYT Comedy
See the original post here:
Patriot or Traitor? - Video
Was Edward Snowden Trained As A Spy? NSA Chief Responds
"Susan Rice sat down with Charlie Rose, who asked her about Snowden #39;s claims. "Was he trained as a spy?" Rose asked. "Has his information damaged any person that we can identify?" "He was not...
By: The Young Turks
View original post here:
Was Edward Snowden Trained As A Spy? NSA Chief Responds - Video
EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A COWARD - - SAYS JOHN KERRY
EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A COWARD -- JOHN KERRY.
By: videorizing
Read more:
EDWARD SNOWDEN IS A COWARD - - SAYS JOHN KERRY - Video
Edward Snowden is a spy ! But what kind double or triple spy ?
Edward Snowden is a spy ! But what kind double or triple spy ?
By: notregme
Continued here:
Edward Snowden is a spy ! But what kind double or triple spy ? - Video
A sticker featuring fugitive intelligence leaker Edward Snowden and partially reading 'asylum' is seen on the pavement in a Berlin street, on May 26, 2014. A German panel set up to assess the extent of spying by the US National Security Agency and its partners on German citizens and politicians, and whether German intelligence aided its activities, decided on May 21, 2014 it wants to question Snowden, perhaps via video link or by sending an envoy to Russia where he has been given temporary asylu | ODD ANDERSEN via Getty Images
U.S. officials have not been shy in claiming fallout from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden's leaks.
"I think its the greatest damage to our combined nations intelligence systems that we have ever suffered," former NSA Director Keith Alexander told an Australian newspaper. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the revelations caused "profound damage." And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) claimed the disclosures "are likely to have lethal consequences for our troops in the field.
But the U.S. government has revealed little to back up these catastrophic-sounding generalizations, saying it wants to keep further details about its intelligence sources and methods from the public. So, one year to the day after Snowden's first leaks were revealed, Americans are forced into a strange balancing act -- weighing whatever good the leaks generated in revealing the vast reach of government spying against unsupported official claims of harm to measures meant to protect the nation.
"If after a year, they can't show a single individual who's been harmed in any way by this reporting, is it really so grave? Is it really so serious?" Snowden asked in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that aired last week. "The possibility exists, and if this has caused some serious harm, I personally would like to know about it."
Getting the facts has been hindered by government agencies whose chiefs made those dire-sounding statements about the Snowden leaks. Contacted by HuffPost, the Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and State Department all declined to provide additional detail on their claims of damage.
The DIA did release portions of its assessment of how Snowden's leaks affected military operations after a Freedom of Information Act request from the Guardian newspaper. But the document was heavily redacted and the DIA withheld 27 of its 39 pages.
The explanation for those redactions and for the agencies' reluctance to reveal more is relatively straightforward: Laying out what Snowden wrought would risk revealing more sensitive secrets, the agencies say.
"It would not be in the best interest of our National Security and efforts to fight terrorism for us to educate -- thru the media -- terrorist on the changes we might be seeing in their communications," Gene Barlow, spokesman for the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, said in an emailed statement.
"We constantly look for opportunities to share with Americans what collection weve lost, but are wary of doing further damage to collection that we need to regain," Barlow added. "We do however, continue to work with our Congressional oversight to make sure they have visibility into the damage done by the leaker."
Read more:
One Year After Edward Snowden's Leaks, Government Claims ...
Nearly a year after the first stories about National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance broke, Germany is at the forefront of international reforms. Along with Brazil, Germany sponsored a UN resolution that was the first major UN statement on the right to privacy in 25 years. Angela Merkel is one of the strongest voices pressing the US on the need for reform. Germany expanded the Department of Cyber Politics at the Foreign office, established a Commissioner for the Federal Intelligence Services at the chancellery, and a commission of inquiry at the parliament.
These stories, and the reforms they spurred, were based on documents the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden put himself at great risk to expose. Yet Berlin still refuses to offer Snowden witness protection and a safe harbor in Germany.
The documents Snowden provided to journalists exposed pervasive US and UK government wrongdoing and violations of the right to privacy, and freedom of expression and association. Even President Obama acknowledged that the disclosures spurred much-needed public discussion of government surveillance.
But under US law, the publication of classified information is severely punished and national security whistleblowers are excluded from protection, regardless of how socially valuable their revelations may be. Snowden, who faces charges under the Espionage Act, would not be able to present a defense that the public interest served by his disclosure of classified information outweighs the harm resulting from the breach of secrecy. He would face the prospect of conviction on various federal charges that could consign him to decades in prison. The German government should have publicly condemned Washingtons statements about prosecuting him and tried to change its stubborn stance on this issue.
Germany is a member of the Freedom Online Coalition, a group of countries that have made a commitment to promote human rights on the internet. The credibility of at least two members of this coalition as champions of Internet freedomthe US and UKhas been deeply damaged by the NSA revelations and the aftermath. That is why Germany has taken over a leadership role for human rights online. In cooperation with Brazil, Germany is pressing other countries to carry out existing human rights obligations and prevent the arbitrary collection of data. This is important, but very difficult in light of the US and UK resistance.
In light of Germanys willingness to take up the mantle for internet freedom, it is incomprehensible and paradoxical that our political leaders do not support having Snowden come to Berlin to testify as well as protecting him from extradition to the US. German-American relations play a major role in this decision of course, and the awareness that relations would be tested. However, the US should keep in mind that it has given political asylum to many people who had to face severe penalties for criticizing their country. Coming after a government that supported Snowden would be a clear sign that the US is applying double standards. Governments should protect national security whistle blowers who expose information of important public interest and violations of the law/ Unfortunately, instead of protecting Snowden, the US has chosen to prosecute him. Its a shame that someone who brought so much important information to light that benefits Germans as well as many other people worldwide is not getting the German governments support.
Snowdens current legal residence status in Russia expires in August. He did the world a great favor. The German government should acknowledge that by inviting him to Germany and accepting his asylum claim if he wishes to stay, not treating him like a criminal or a Typhoid Mary.
Wenzel Michalski is Germany director at Human Rights Watch
Read the original:
Why Germany Should Welcome Edward Snowden | Human Rights Watch