« First...102030...1,6131,6141,6151,6161,617...1,6201,6301,640...Last »

Woman Who Housed Edward Snowden in Hong Kong Receives Refugee …

Posted on by

Canadian authorities have granted asylum to a woman and her daughter who housed Edward Snowden in Hong Kong after the former NSA contractor leaked classified documents on US surveillance programs around the world in 2013.

The decision allows Philippines national Vanessa Rodel and her 7-year-old daughter Keana to leave Hong Kong after living in the city without proper legal status for years.

Im truly happy, Rodel said. Im so excited. I cant sleep.

Rodel and two Sri Lankan families put up Snowden shortly after he went public in 2013.

At the time, Snowdens lawyer Robert Tibbo worried that his client could face possible rendition back to the US, where he was branded a traitor.

So Tibbo advised Snowden to hide with Hong Kong refugees because he thought it would be the last place anyone would look.

This has been a seven year battle, said Tibbo, who also represents the refugees who hid Snowden.

After Snowden left the city and was granted asylum in Russia, Rodel and the other refugees who hid him moved forward with their Hong Kong refugee status applications. Their cases were rejectedin 2017.

As of now, only Rodel and her daughter Keana have been granted asylum in Canada. Lawyers working on behalf of the other refugees who hid Snowden said the Canadian government is still considering their cases.

Rodel told CNN the process has been long, arduous and depressing. She said she came to Hong Kong because she was a victim of human trafficking in her home country of the Philippines, and is too afraid to go home. However, as a refugee without legal status, she also does not feel safe in Hong Kong.

Theres nothing here, Rodel said. Its a living hell in Hong Kong. Weve had a miserable life in Hong Kong.

Rodel said in Canada, she hopes she and her daughter can learn French, buy a home and perhaps even enroll in university.

Keana doesnt remember much of Snowden, except that he has short hair. She said shes excited for her new life in Canada, and is looking forward to seeing snow for the first time and Siberian huskies.

Rodel and two Sri Lankan families who hid Snowden came forwardin 2016, around the time Oliver Stones film Snowden was released.

The three families they always faced long odds on being granted legal status in Hong Kong.

The cityis not a signatory to theUnited Nations Refugees Convention, and historically has only allowed a very small number of refugees to settle in. There are about 10,000 people living in Hong Kong who are seeking refugee status,according to the NGO Justice Centre Hong Kong.

Those who are not recognized have trouble accessing basic services like healthcare or police protection. Children born here to refugees, like Rodels daughter Keana, are effectively stateless. Keana does not have a passport.

The Hong Kong government said in a statement to CNNin 2017that it rejected the three families asylum claims because it believed there were no substantial grounds for believing that the claimants, if returned to their country of origin, will be subject to real and substantial risk of danger.

56.130366-106.346771

See more here:
Woman Who Housed Edward Snowden in Hong Kong Receives Refugee ...

WikiLeaks Suspect Bradley Manning’s Home Life Included 911 …

Posted on by

Before he was in the national spotlight, Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who now faces charges of giving classified material to WikiLeaks, was an isolated young man with a troubled family life, according to Frontline correspondent Martin Smith.

In a profile of the jailed soldier for Frontline, Smith conducted extensive interviews with Manning's family and friends. Smith says his goal was to explore Manning's life before his arrest last summer.

"Bradley Manning has become something of a legend, and people are taking sides about whether he's a hero or a villain," Smith says.

A PBS profile of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking classified secrets (shown here in an undated photo), portrays his turbulent family life. Frontline hide caption

A PBS profile of Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking classified secrets (shown here in an undated photo), portrays his turbulent family life.

An Early Interest In Computers

Smith tells NPR's Renee Montagne that his research depicts Manning as a young man who grew up in a small town near Oklahoma City, where he showed his intelligence in school but had few friends.

"He was just very dedicated to the computer," Smith says, citing stories that Manning's father told him. "At the age of 10, in the late '90s, before we were all addicted to the Internet, he set up his own website."

Smith says that when Manning was 13, his parents split up.

"Around that same time, Bradley came out to his friends," Smith says, "and told them he was gay."

Manning's mother, a native of Britain, took her son home with her when she left America after the divorce. Bradley Manning attended high school in Wales, where Smith says he continued to explore computers and started to talk politics.

"He opposed the war in Iraq and talked about that with friends," Smith says. "And he also starts to get a reputation for being somewhat hot-headed."

A Rocky Return Home

Manning moved back to the United States after graduating from high school, choosing to live with his father despite the two having "a fairly strained relationship," Smith says.

By that time, the elder Manning had remarried. And it was Bradley Manning's stepmother who placed a 911 call, alarmed by a heated argument at their Oklahoma City home. Here's an excerpt of that call:

While serving in Iraq, Manning was stationed 40 miles east of Baghdad. He was arrested after video shot from a U.S. military helicopter was posted online. Frontline hide caption

While serving in Iraq, Manning was stationed 40 miles east of Baghdad. He was arrested after video shot from a U.S. military helicopter was posted online.

Oklahoma City 911.

Yes, I need an officer here at my house please. ... My husband's 18-year-old son is out of control and just threatened me with a knife ... and his father has just had surgery and he's down on the floor ... and ... get away from him!

Why's he on the floor?

Because he tried to protect me and so he fell. Get away from him!

At one point in the recording, the younger Manning is heard asking his father if he's OK. Smith says Brian Manning assured him that the altercation wasn't all that serious but that the elder Manning also added, "You never know."

When the police came, they took Bradley Manning out of his father's house. The next day, he moved out for good. On the 911 tape, Bradley's stepmother blames the spat on an argument over money not on her stepson's sexuality, as has been reported.

"It's interesting in that the story that has been reported is that Bradley had attended a gay rights rally some years later, and told a reporter there that his father had kicked him out of the house because he was gay," Smith says.

"The father maintains that that wasn't the case," he says.

To report the story for Frontline, Smith spoke with Bradley Manning's father for some seven hours. In one exchange, Smith asks Brian Manning why his son might have shared classified information with WikiLeaks, as he is alleged to have done.

Manning: I don't know why he would do that. I really don't.

Smith: Was he patriotic?

Manning: I don't think he followed any regime of any kind.

Smith: You don't think he was a patriot of the United States?

Manning: I imagine he was, just as much as you and I.

Smith: Well, he's your son. You knew him. Was he patriotic?

Manning: It never came up. I mean, he never said anything anti-American.

Smith says Brian Manning does not believe that his son provided the materials to WikiLeaks.

A Push To Join The Army

It was Brian Manning who urged his son to join the Army something Bradley Manning had said he did not want to do.

"He needed structure in his life. He was aimless," Brian Manning told Smith in an interview.

Before his arrest last year, Manning was reportedly involved in several altercations while serving in the Army. Frontline hide caption

Before his arrest last year, Manning was reportedly involved in several altercations while serving in the Army.

But after joining the Army, Bradley Manning ran into more problems. "He hit a fellow soldier; he threw chairs; he yelled at superiors," Smith says.

Manning also had a top security clearance something Smith attributes to the military's efforts to improve information-sharing in the years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Since his arrest last May, Manning has been held at a naval brig in Quantico, Va., under "prevention of injury watch." As he awaits trial, Manning has reportedly been kept in shackles and solitary confinement.

Asked what might have motivated Manning to do the things the U.S. government has accused him of, Smith cites several online chats that took place soon after the first leak of secret documents.

The posts were by "a fellow going by bradass87," Smith says, who revealed to a hacker named Adrian Lamo that he had gotten in touch with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks after being angered by the contents of secret documents and videos.

"So what's evident from that conversation, if you want to assume that bradass87 is Bradley Manning," Smith says, is "that he did it because he was outraged, he did it out of a sense that people should know what's going on, and that the government shouldn't be able to hide some of this information from the public."

Excerpt from:
WikiLeaks Suspect Bradley Manning's Home Life Included 911 ...

AES and RSA Encryption Explained

Posted on by

This is How Encryption with Boxcryptor Works

We encrypt files and thus provide increased protection against espionage and data theft. For encryption, we use a combination of AES-256 encryption and RSA encryption. Here we explain the two algorithms.

Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is one of the most frequently used and most secure encryption algorithms available today. It is publicly accessible, and it is the cipher which the NSA uses for securing documents with the classification "top secret". Its story of success started in 1997, when NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) started officially looking for a successor to the aging encryption standard DES. An algorithm named "Rijndael", developed by the Belgian cryptographists Daemen and Rijmen, excelled in security as well as in performance and flexibility.

It came out on top of several competitors and was officially announced the new encryption standard AES in 2001. The algorithm is based on several substitutions, permutations and linear transformations, each executed on data blocks of 16 byte therefore the term blockcipher. Those operations are repeated several times, called rounds. During each round, a unique roundkey is calculated out of the encryption key, and incorporated in the calculations. Based on the block structure of AES, the change of a single bit, either in the key, or in the plaintext block, results in a completely different ciphertext block a clear advantage over traditional stream ciphers. The difference between AES-128, AES-192 and AES-256 finally is the length of the key: 128, 192 or 256 bit all drastic improvements compared to the 56 bit key of DES. By way of illustration: Cracking a 128 bit AES key with a state-of-the-art supercomputer would take longer than the presumed age of the universe. And Boxcryptor even uses 256 bit keys. As of today, no practicable attack against AES exists. Therefore, AES remains the preferred encryption standard for governments, banks and high security systems around the world.

RSA is one of the most successful, asymmetric encryption systems today. Originally discovered in 1973 by the British intelligence agency GCHQ, it received the classification top secret. We have to thank the cryptologists Rivest, Shamir and Adleman for its civil rediscovery in 1977. They stumbled across it during an attempt to solve another cryptographic problem.

As opposed to traditional, symmetric encryption systems, RSA works with two different keys: A public and a private one. Both work complementary to each other, which means that a message encrypted with one of them can only be decrypted by its counterpart. Since the private key cannot be calculated from the public key, the latter is generally available to the public.

Those properties enable asymmetric cryptosystems to be used in a wide array of functions, such as digital signatures. In the process of signing a document, a fingerprint encrypted with RSA, is attached to the file, and enables the receiver to verify both the sender and the integrity of the document. The security of RSA itself is mainly based on the mathematical problem of integer factorization. A message that is about to be encrypted is treated as one large number. When encrypting the message, it is raised to the power of the key, and divided with remainder by a fixed product of two primes. By repeating the process with the other key, the plaintext can be retrieved again. The best currently known method to break the encryption requires factorizing the product used in the division. Currently, it is not possible to calculate these factors for numbers greater than 768 bits. That is why modern cryptosystems use a minimum key length of 3072 bits.

Boxcryptor implements a combined encryption process based on asymmetric RSA and symmetric AES encryption. Every file has its own unique random file key which is generated when the file is being created.

Excerpt from:
AES and RSA Encryption Explained

Chelsea Manning: supporters demand release from solitary …

Posted on by

Supporters of Chelsea Manning have demanded her release from effective solitary confinement, in which she has been held for more than two weeks since being jailed for contempt of court.

We condemn the solitary confinement that Chelsea Manning has been subjected to during her incarceration at William G Truesdale adult detention center, a committee of supporters said in a statement on Saturday.

Manning has been held in administrative segregation, or adseg, with up to 22 hours each day spent in isolation, for the duration of her detention.

A law enforcement official disputed that Mannings treatment constituted solitary confinement.

Manning was jailed on 8 March for refusing to testify before a Virginia grand jury investigating WikiLeaks, the transparency organization to which she leaked thousands of US military and diplomatic documents in 2010.

She said she objected to the secrecy of the grand jury process and had revealed everything she knows at her court martial. After that process, Manning served seven years of a 35-year sentence that Barack Obama commuted in 2017.

In Virginia, US district judge Claude Hilton said Manning would be jailed until she testified or the grand jury concluded its work.

Mannings supporters said: The jail says keeping high-profile prisoners in adseg is policy for the protection of all prisoners, but there is no reason to believe jail officials view Chelsea as either a target or a risk.

If Truesdale wants to prioritize Chelseas health and welfare, as they consistently claim, then they should make sure she is able to have contact with other people in the jail.

In a subsequent statement, city of Alexandria sheriff Dana Lawhorne said the accusations by Mannings supporters were not accurate or fair. The sheriff said the facility does not have solitary confinement and administrative segregation inmates have access to visits, books and recreation.

Extended periods of solitary confinement amount to torture, according to the United Nations special rapporteur Juan Mndez, who has argued that solitary confinement should be banned by states as a punishment or extortion technique.

Mannings supporters said: Chelsea is a principled person, and she has made clear that while this kind of treatment will harm her, and will almost certainly leave lasting scars, it will never make her change her mind about cooperating with the grand jury.

Go here to read the rest:
Chelsea Manning: supporters demand release from solitary ...

Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts, and Market Cap Data – UNHASHED

Posted on by

Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts, and Market Cap Data - UNHASHED # NAME PRICE MARKET CAP VOLUME (24H) CHANGE (24H) CHANGE (7D) PRICE GRAPH (7D) 1 Bitcoin $4,021.72 $70,812,116,495 $9,009,145,609 -0.13% -0.16% 2 Ethereum $137.36 $14,473,184,288 $4,110,291,198 -0.31% -2.30% 3 XRP $0.30909 $12,878,657,269 $592,273,459 -0.96% -2.78% 4 Litecoin $60.06 $3,665,231,179 $2,093,846,996 -1.45% -2.25% 5 EOS $3.65 $3,309,234,260 $1,373,932,832 -0.72% -3.69% 6 Bitcoin Cash $166.39 $2,943,483,526 $431,309,194 +0.23% +8.21% 7 Binance Coin $16.92 $2,389,176,496 $273,130,375 +11.25% +6.75% 8 Stellar $0.10664 $2,050,229,904 $201,238,285 -1.12% -2.10% 9 Tether $1.01 $2,033,790,249 $7,567,567,015 -0.11% -0.47% 10 Cardano $0.06181 $1,602,558,339 $127,030,386 +4.06% +21.66% 11 TRON $0.02375 $1,583,757,854 $339,815,576 -0.85% +2.26% 12 Bitcoin SV $66.39 $1,173,097,794 $86,170,183 -0.79% -2.55% 13 Monero $53.62 $904,779,834 $83,914,019 -0.12% +0.39% 14 IOTA $0.31092 $864,220,710 $10,779,733 -1.21% +3.62% 15 Dash $92.33 $803,809,428 $243,413,113 +0.44% +0.55% 16 Maker $730.78 $730,778,090 $1,535,864 -0.31% +5.10% 17 Ontology $1.24 $615,294,511 $72,520,269 -2.79% +16.34% 18 NEO $9.17 $596,099,693 $256,503,580 -1.77% -2.92% 19 Ethereum Classic $4.81 $525,757,290 $189,024,760 -1.49% +7.88% 20 NEM $0.05153 $463,756,665 $14,105,983 +2.17% +2.79% 21 Tezos $0.68253 $452,728,369 $3,802,432 -9.52% +38.97% 22 Zcash $57.31 $353,288,714 $165,230,040 +1.73% +4.92% 23 VeChain $0.00579 $321,240,499 $14,241,222 -2.02% +9.03% 24 Crypto.com Chain $0.06760 $285,854,727 $871,652 +1.97% -7.60% 25 Waves $2.76 $275,943,214 $5,580,849 -1.41% -0.70% 26 Basic Attention Token $0.21485 $267,360,071 $20,288,509 +6.47% +9.57% 27 USD Coin $1.01 $247,302,935 $17,133,588 -0.14% -0.89% 28 OmiseGO $1.75 $246,023,870 $80,594,024 +3.96% +16.35% 29 Dogecoin $0.00204 $242,889,549 $15,494,715 -0.84% -1.20% 30 Qtum $2.60 $232,535,962 $154,523,811 -0.67% +3.77% 31 Bitcoin Gold $13.01 $226,621,852 $9,545,814 -1.14% -2.74% 32 TrueUSD $1.01 $204,488,905 $42,481,561 -0.70% -1.32% 33 Ravencoin $0.05664 $179,636,290 $125,692,798 +20.57% +97.71% 34 Decred $18.77 $178,603,681 $1,532,709 -0.43% -4.53% 35 Lisk $1.52 $175,409,438 $3,963,700 +0.61% -2.54% 36 Zilliqa $0.02001 $174,099,240 $15,947,977 +1.07% +9.68% 37 Augur $15.36 $168,951,516 $8,500,302 -0.57% +6.74% 38 DigiByte $0.01456 $168,697,560 $2,627,594 -0.06% +0.67% 39 0x $0.28457 $166,799,221 $22,608,222 +4.86% +6.58% 40 Chainlink $0.45325 $158,637,662 $2,714,219 -1.88% -6.26% 41 Holo $0.00117 $155,338,512 $7,598,665 -0.89% -1.73% 42 ICON $0.32272 $152,779,065 $10,862,628 +0.46% -3.11% 43 Steem $0.48087 $148,082,292 $3,530,680 +3.17% +1.90% 44 BitShares $0.05238 $141,472,947 $5,136,134 -1.11% +2.39% 45 Bytecoin $0.00076 $139,520,901 $155,532 -0.42% -4.26% 46 Enjin Coin $0.18064 $138,551,546 $14,443,653 -2.58% +8.69% 47 BitTorrent $0.00080 $135,572,477 $23,290,906 -1.60% -4.10% 48 Nano $0.98496 $131,244,282 $1,837,128 -0.50% -2.56% 49 Bitcoin Diamond $0.84744 $130,299,545 $1,230,927 -0.67% -3.40% 50 Huobi Token $2.54 $127,058,798 $84,925,608 +2.81% +22.78% 51 Aeternity $0.47829 $121,981,693 $36,681,391 -0.70% +2.76% 52 Paxos Standard Token $1.01 $119,843,929 $47,800,392 -0.11% -0.43% 53 Maximine Coin $0.07248 $119,521,049 $13,086,522 +2.06% +92.68% 54 Verge $0.00743 $117,348,132 $4,893,993 -1.09% +5.47% 55 Komodo $1.04 $117,022,084 $760,208 -1.57% -4.22% 56 Bytom $0.11149 $111,772,931 $4,761,830 -3.31% +10.61% 57 KuCoin Shares $1.22 $109,503,910 $5,038,659 +5.73% +52.76% 58 Siacoin $0.00272 $108,676,205 $2,350,747 +1.89% -0.39% 59 Pundi X $0.00062 $107,861,240 $1,868,552 -0.10% -6.38% 60 IOST $0.00856 $102,798,689 $53,938,045 -1.37% +9.84% 61 THETA $0.11645 $101,367,117 $5,925,619 -2.57% -9.40% 62 Aurora $0.01513 $98,978,078 $2,318,708 +4.79% +9.02% 63 Stratis $0.94061 $93,366,475 $2,032,703 +3.97% -2.29% 64 Dai $0.98525 $89,419,616 $36,641,796 -0.47% -0.80% 65 Project Pai $0.05630 $81,686,661 $5,407,514 +0.30% +21.85% 66 Status $0.02285 $79,307,877 $8,071,395 -0.41% +0.85% 67 ABBC Coin $0.17269 $79,001,411 $36,421,495 -13.59% -51.18% 68 Insight Chain $0.22283 $77,970,529 $3,200,401 +2.02% -15.67% 69 Populous $1.46 $77,679,003 $1,699,166 +1.32% +1.66% 70 Golem $0.07817 $75,328,454 $1,084,457 -0.53% +3.53% 71 Ardor $0.07149 $71,420,680 $971,248 +0.76% +4.85% 72 Ark $0.63379 $69,187,103 $459,150 +2.07% -1.53% 73 Revain $0.14094 $68,279,283 $574,088 -0.82% +2.64% 74 REPO $0.59513 $65,439,380 $49,872 +1.79% -10.64% 75 Cryptonex $1.15 $63,810,305 $9,482,880 +0.16% -0.10% 76 GXChain $1.06 $63,383,394 $14,510,779 -4.81% +14.85% 77 Mixin $144.83 $62,943,137 $609,610 +0.27% -4.03% 78 Gemini Dollar $1.01 $62,827,732 $11,383,593 -0.13% -0.77% 79 HyperCash $1.41 $61,346,319 $6,165,363 -2.02% +5.25% 80 MaidSafeCoin $0.12851 $58,156,830 $219,198 -0.37% +1.00% 81 WAX $0.06155 $58,022,791 $311,762 +0.82% -2.25% 82 Electroneum $0.00632 $57,887,511 $2,352,310 +0.51% -3.10% 83 Factom $6.15 $57,877,199 $50,316 +0.07% -5.32% 84 Decentraland $0.05282 $55,471,250 $4,116,080 +5.74% +7.40% 85 Loom Network $0.07144 $54,539,499 $1,857,832 -1.49% +6.27% 86 QASH $0.15383 $53,839,346 $228,879 -1.98% +2.35% 87 Digitex Futures $0.07231 $53,329,975 $871,849 +0.79% -9.86% 88 Waltonchain $1.26 $51,504,241 $2,780,841 +0.20% -4.65% 89 Loopring $0.06199 $51,386,747 $1,390,815 -0.25% -3.44% 90 Crypto.com $3.21 $50,693,760 $1,407,183 -1.77% -2.78% 91 Aelf $0.17738 $49,666,218 $6,225,751 +2.83% +4.30% 92 Qubitica $17.64 $49,390,449 $78,764 -0.67% -3.08% 93 PIVX $0.86228 $48,961,296 $804,391 +3.05% +3.69% 94 Zcoin $6.75 $47,678,836 $927,223 -1.78% -0.41% 95 ThoreCoin $546.56 $47,378,687 $89,742 -0.93% -0.75% 96 Power Ledger $0.11840 $46,982,824 $9,339,123 +11.73% +11.77% 97 Polymath $0.13292 $46,310,770 $51,006,388 +33.28% +32.04% 98 Nexo $0.07805 $43,708,753 $6,039,740 +0.66% -8.36% 99 MOAC $0.69806 $43,603,416 $49,781 -1.18% -5.46% 100 Wanchain $0.40848 $43,361,315 $4,100,713 +1.06% -1.55% Scroll Up

Read more:
Cryptocurrency Prices, Charts, and Market Cap Data - UNHASHED

Julian Assange won’t hand over docs to House Judiciary …

Posted on by

Julian Assange, who has lived as a fugitive in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for years, was unlikely to cooperate voluntarily with congressional investigators. | Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Congress

By KYLE CHENEY

03/21/2019 10:23 AM EDT

Updated 03/21/2019 01:45 PM EDT

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has declined to provide documents to the House Judiciary Committees broad inquiry into actions by President Donald Trump, his lawyer confirmed Thursday morning.

The First Amendment dictates that an inquiry by Congress should not begin by issuing requests to journalists for documents pertaining to its newsgathering, the attorney, Barry Pollack, wrote in an email.

Story Continued Below

Assange has long parried criticism that he acted on behalf of Russia when he posted hacked Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee emails in 2016 by suggesting his actions were no different than journalists accepting and publishing confidential documents.

But the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that WikiLeaks was an active participant in the effort to obtain and post Democratic emails, partnering with Russian propaganda outlets and acting as a tool of the Russian government. Assange has denied such claims.

Assange, who has lived as a fugitive in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for years, was unlikely to cooperate with congressional investigators. Hes the latest of 81 people and entities to decline a Judiciary Committee request for documents.

So far, the committee has received upward of 25 responses to its document requests. About a dozen witnesses have publicly confirmed that they had given or intended to provide documents including former Trump aide Hope Hicks, National Enquirer parent company American Media, Trump confidant Thomas Barrack, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and the lobbying firm of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Former Trump deputy campaign manager Rick Gates a longtime ally of Trump onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort declined to provide materials or testimony to the committee, citing his ongoing cooperation with federal prosecutors, but left the door open to cooperating later. Former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo said his communications were protected by attorney-client and work-product privilege.

Longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone also declined to cooperate with the committee investigation. In a letter obtained Thursday by POLITICO, Stone's attorney Grant Smith indicated that Stone would invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in order to decline the panel's request. He called the investigation a "fishing expedition" but said he declined with the "utmost respect" for the committee.

POLITICO has reached out to nearly all 81 people and entities targeted by the Judiciary Committee, but dozens have declined to confirm if they have supplied or intend to supply documents. The committee has also declined to detail specific responses, though committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on CNN on Wednesday that he wasnt sure it had quite reached a majority of the 81.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the article here:
Julian Assange won't hand over docs to House Judiciary ...

[Revision] More Than a Data Dump | Harper’s Magazine

Posted on by

Last fall, a court filing in the Eastern District of Virginia inadvertently suggested that the Justice Department had indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and other outlets reported soon after that Assange had likely been secretly indicted for conspiring with his sources to publish classified government material and hacked documents belonging to the Democratic National Committee, among other things.

Illustration by Ricardo Martnez

As a veteran of major free-press legal battles, I waited, throughout the days that followed, for journalists to come to Assanges defense. A few reliable advocates, such as the ACLU and the Knight First Amendment Institute, did sound the alarm, but the editorial boards of the Times and the Washington Post remained silent.

The Columbia Journalism Review allowed that Assanges prosecution could be a slippery slope that would threaten traditional journalists and publishers, but it was quick to note that WikiLeaks was a shadowy organization and not officially a journalistic one. (Of course, there is no body, not even the CJR, that determines what is officially a journalistic outfit.)

Overall, the same mainstream journalists who have treated Donald Trumps disparaging tweets about them as unprecedented threats to their freedom handled Assanges indictment as a political story, another piece of the ongoing TrumpRussia saga.

In fact, the Trump Administrations prosecution of Assange represents a greater threat to the free press than all of the presidents nasty tweets combined. If the prosecution succeeds, investigative reporting based on classified information will be given a near death blow.

Julian Assange started WikiLeaks in 2006 with the stated purpose of providing a place for newsworthy information to be released on a confidential basis. The site came to widespread international notice a few years later, when Assange obtained thousands of classified documents relating to the Iraq War from US Army soldier Chelsea (ne Bradley) Manning. Assange in turn shared these documents with Le Monde,El Pas,Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the Times, each of which separately edited and published what theyd received.

Amid the furor surrounding this publication, politicians from across the political spectrumSenators Dianne Feinstein and Joseph Lieberman among themcalled for Assanges prosecution. Barack Obamas Justice Department seriously considered indicting Assange under the Espionage Act and convened a grand jury for that purpose. The legal theory behind such a prosecution involves charging Assange with conspiring with Manning to release classified materials. Using this conspiracy theory, the Espionage Act would be made to apply to a reporternot directly but indirectlyby using the reporters relationship with sources. In other words, the reporter would be made responsible for the actions of his sources. (Manning was eventually convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking to Assange.)

The Justice Department has been enamored of this conspiracy approach since the time of the Pentagon Papers. In that case, Richard Nixons DOJ attempted to enjoin the New York Times and, later, the Washington Post from publishing a forty-seven-volume Defense Department study of the history of US relations with Vietnam from 1945 to 1967, which had been classified top secret. I led the team of lawyers who defended the Times in that case. I had advised the Times that the government would attempt to enjoin publication and thereafter would attempt to prosecute the Times criminally. I also advised the Times that it would win any case brought against it in the Supreme Court, on First Amendment grounds.

In June 1971, the Times published three installments of the papers and was enjoined from further publication, as I had predicted. The Washington Post then picked up where the Times left off, and both papers ended up in the Supreme Court, which ruledin their favor. The courts decision is now widely considered a legal landmark, since it effectively determined that no injunction could be brought to stop publication of classified material.

The ruling did not, however, determine that newspapers or their reporters were immune from prosecution after the fact. Following the Supreme Courts decision, attorney general John H.Mitchell convened a grand jury in Boston to determine whether there was a conspiracy among Times reporter Neil Sheehan and others with respect to the publication of the Pentagon Papers. After a year and a half, the Justice Department gave up and dissolved the grand jury.

Since Assange has already published the leaks in question, he obviously cannot be stopped from publishing them now; all the government can do is prosecute him criminally for obtaining or publishing the leaks in the first place. To date, there never has been a criminal prosecution for this type of behavior. Obamas Justice Department ultimately concluded that a prosecution of Assange would damage the First Amendment. Their decision effectively meant that Assange was entitled to the same constitutional protections given reporters. (A Washington Post story about this decision quoted Obama officials who referred to the New York Times problemi.e., the fact that any precedent set with respect to Assange could be applied to traditional journalistic entities.)

Trumps Justice Department has reversed course on this decision. When Jeff Sessions first came into office as attorney general, he said that one of his top priorities would be going after Assange. Secretary of State Mike Pompeothen the director of the CIAsaid, It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state, hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.

While no one knows whats in the DOJs indictment, it is highly probable that it names Assange as a co-conspirator not only in connection with the Manning leaks but also in connection with the leaks of emails stolen from the DNC and from Hillary Clintons campaign chair John Podesta, as well as the leaks of classified information detailing the CIAs ability to perform electronic surveillance (the so-called Vault 7 matter).

With respect to the DNC/Podesta leaks, Assange is in the crosshairs of special prosecutor Robert Mueller, who apparently believes that he may have conspired with Russian intelligence and perhaps additionally with members of the Trump campaign to leak the emails. Assange denies both that he received the emails from Russian intelligence and that he provided information to the Trump campaign.

Muellers January indictment of the former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone alleges that Stone tried to communicate with Assange through two intermediaries: radio host Randy Credico and political commentator Jerome Corsi. After laying out these allegations, Mueller indicted Stone for lying about his contacts with Credico and Corsi, and for attempting to get Credico to lie before Congress about their conversations. In a later filing, Mueller contended that he had executed search warrants on accounts that contained communication between Stone and Organization 1, understood to be WikiLeaks. (Stone has pleaded not guilty to all charges.)

Not all of the facts about the DNC leaks have come out yet, so it is hard to know exactly what Assange did. If he explicitly agreed to act as a Russian agent, he should lose his First Amendment protection. On the other hand, if he did no more than what he did with Manningreceive the documents and publish themhe should have that protection. The same is true with respect to the Vault 7 matter: the facts concerning these leaks are not known, but the application of the conspiracy theory to these leaks is presumably the same as in the DNC hack.*

Should Trumps Justice Department succeed in prosecuting Assange, the only safe course of action for a reporter would be to receive information from a leaker passively. As soon as a reporter actively sought the information or cooperated with the source, the reporter would be subject to prosecution. National security reporting, however, is not done by receiving information over the transom. It is nave to think that reporters can sit around waiting for leaks to fall into their laps. In a recent interview, the longtime investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told me that he obtains classified information through a process of seduction in which he spends time trying to induce the source into giving up the information. If he isnt allowed to do that, he says, Its the end of national security reporting.

Its clear that the Justice Department believes such seduction creates a conspiracy between the leaker and the reporter. In its prosecution of the State Department employee Stephen Jin-Woo Kim for leaking classified information about North Korea to a Fox News reporter, James Rosen, the DOJ stated, in a sealed affidavit, that it considered Rosen a co-conspirator. The DOJ filed the affidavit with the D.C. District Court in 2010 to gain access to Rosens email, which showed him persuading Kim, asking for the leak time and time again until Kim finally relented. The affidavit was unsealed three years later, to the shock of Rosen and many other journalists. When Fox News angrily protested that Rosens First Amendment rights prevented him from being a co-conspirator, the Obama Justice Department assured Fox that it would not prosecute him. If this type of conspiracy theory were to be applied in a criminal trial, a court would end up examining every effort by a reporter to obtain information. It would criminalize the reporting process. Reporters and their publishers would argue that the First Amendment protected news-gathering efforts such as Rosens, but the result would be in doubt in every case.

If reporters can be indicted for talking to their sources, it will mean that the government has created the equivalent of a UK Official Secrets Actthrough judicial fiat, without any legislative action.

Given the threat the Justice Departments actions against Assange pose to the First Amendment, why havent more journalists, press organizations, and editorial boards jumped in to support him? Principally it is because journalists dislike what he is doing; they dont believe he is a real journalist and therefore do not see him as entitled to the same protections they enjoy.

Writing in U.S. News and World Report, for example, Susan Milligan says, [Journalism] requires research, balance and most of all judgment. . . . Dumping documentssome of them classifiedonto a website does not make anyone a journalist. Add to this my own experience of when I was attacked several years ago by a howling mob of A-list journalists led by the late Morley Safer at a party (for my own book) where I said Assange, as a reporter, was entitled to First Amendment rights. He is just a data dumper, I was toldand most everyone there agreed.

But hes not just a data dumper. He edited the Manning leaks initially, holding back some material. He may have done the same thing with his other leaks, including the Vault 7 releases. For better or for worse he seeks out information to be published on his website the way other journalists do for their publications. He is a publisher and is entitled to the same First Amendment protections as any other. Nonetheless, in the eyes of establishment journalists he remains a dumper, as well as a rapist, a liar, a thief, and a Russian agent.

One wonders whether the real reason journalists will not support Assange is that they simply dont get it. They dont understand how a successful prosecution of Assange would threaten their ability to report. I would suggest that the focus of the mainstream press should not be on whether Assange meets the usual definition of a journalist or whether they approve of what he does. Thats not the point. The point is that he carries out the functions of a journalist, has First Amendment protections (as they do), and should not be prosecuted for what he does. If he is, we are all worse off for it.

You are currently viewing this article as a guest. If you are a subscriber, please sign in. If you aren't, please subscribe below and get access to the entire Harper's archive for only $23.99/year.

Visit link:
[Revision] More Than a Data Dump | Harper's Magazine

Open Source Software (OSS) Policy | Policy | GSA Open …

Posted on by

GSA Instructional Letter

01/14/2019

The purpose of this Order is to review GSAs policy on open source software development and publication, and to communicate responsibilities to the agency for compliance with OMBs open source policy. Specifically, the Order outlines requirements for implementing open source code produced by and/or for the agency in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-16-21, Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software, dated August 8, 2016.

The Office of GSA IT has taken an open-first approach to data, application programming interface, and source code. Specifically, GSA IT developed an Open Source Working Group, with representation from multiple technology program offices, tasked with identifying processes for publishing open source code. At approximately the same time, OMB published OMB Memorandum M-16-21. The release of this memorandum prioritized the creation of an agency-wide process of releasing open source code.

This Order supersedes and cancels CIO IL-16-03, GSA Open Source Software (OSS) Policy, dated November 3, 2016.

a. Requires organizations to account for and publish their open source code in accordance with M-16-21.

b. New code developed after August 8, 2016 must use JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format with metadata, and be published on gsa.gov/code.json.

c. Contract requirements must follow OMBs software analysis outlined in M-16-21.

d. Incorporates discussion of GSAs Open Source Working Group, which was created to identify a process for publishing open source code. This process and all guidance pertaining to GSA open source code can be found at https://open.gsa.gov. The Open Source Working Group will update and maintain all guidance and implementation instructions pertaining to this Order on this site.

e. Ensures a standard, secure open source code development pipeline is in place.

a. This Order applies to all GSA Services, Staff Offices, and Regional components.

b. This Order applies to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) only to the extent that the OIG determines it is consistent with the OIGs independent authority under the IG Act and it does not conflict with other OIG policies or the OIG mission.

c. This Order applies to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) only to the extent that the CBCA determines it is consistent with the CBCAs independent authority under the Contract Disputes Act and other authorities and it does not conflict with the CBCAs policies or the CBCA mission.

This Order requires GSA organizations to account for and publish their open source code in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-16-21 and:

a. Promotes GSAs vision of being open through development and acquisition practices;

b. Promotes a posture of being open first by requiring new custom code to be released as a Minimum Viable Product (MVP), engaging the public before releasing, and drawing upon the publics knowledge to improve the project. Justification will be required for new custom code that does not follow these guidelines;

c. Incorporates GSAs Open Source Implementation guidelines and Open Source Checklist to ensure the proper considerations are made before going live with a public software project;

d. Requires that a standard, secure open source code development pipeline process be in place at GSA that all organizations will follow. This process can be accomplished multiple ways, such as performing automated code scanning or code reviews. The Open Source Working Group will establish the pipeline process and publish it at https://open.gsa.gov;

e. Adheres to releasing open source code through a public-facing software version control platform, including code developed by GSA personnel and contractors. Guidance on releasing open source code can be found at https://open.gsa.gov;

f. Implements OMBs three-step software analysis outlined in M-16-21. Specific contract requirements will be developed through collaboration between GSAs Chief Procurement Officer and the Open Source Working Group and will be subsequently communicated to the agency; and

g. Requires that a metadata file be included in each projects source code repository. The metadata file will contain information about the project that can be included in GSAs code inventory. See https://open.gsa.gov for details.

a. GSAs Chief Technology Officer (CTO) is responsible for establishing an internal policy that incorporates M-16-21 requirements and publishing it on http://www.gsa.gov/digitalstrategy. Additionally, the CTO is responsible for running the Open Source Working Group that creates the guidance and implementation instructions as needed to implement this policy. All guidance and other instructions for this initiative is available on https://open.gsa.gov.

b. The CTO is responsible for identifying a standard Version Control System. GSA Service and Staff Offices (Project teams) are responsible for moving to the standard Version Control System. The standard Version Control System and guidance related to it is found on https://open.gsa.gov.

c. GSA Service and Staff Offices (Project teams) are responsible for being open first by requiring new custom code to be released as a MVP, engaging the public before releasing, and drawing upon the publics knowledge to improve the project. Project teams will utilize existing processes such as the Authority to Operate Impact Analysis to determine the applications level of strategic importance in terms of Integrity, confidentiality and availability. Project teams should also consider the business value that open sourcing all or part of the code base provides towards meeting the objectives of the program. Sufficient justification will be required for new custom code that does not follow these guidelines. For guidance, see https://open.gsa.gov.

d. GSA Service and Staff Offices (Project teams) are responsible for inventorying all new code developed after August 8, 2016 using a standard JSON file format with metadata criteria established by OMB. Guidance on how to meet this requirement is available on https://open.gsa.gov under Inventory Inclusion.

e. GSA Service and Staff Offices (Project teams) are responsible for publishing all new open source code, barring sufficient justification as outlined in 7.c.. Publishing all new code as open source allows GSA to exceed OMBs goal that 20% of code be published as open source.

f. GSA Service and Staff Offices (Project teams) are responsible for publishing the inventory JSON on http://www.gsa.gov/code.json. Guidance on how to meet this requirement is provided on https://open.gsa.gov.

Excerpt from:
Open Source Software (OSS) Policy | Policy | GSA Open ...

Daniel Ellsberg Calls Chelsea Manning an American Hero

Posted on by

Two years after being released from prison where she had served seven years for exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chelsea Manning was jailed once again for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

I will not comply with this, or any other grand jury, Manning declared in a written statement. Imprisoning me for my refusal to answer questions only subjects me to additional punishment for my repeatedly-stated ethical objections to the grand jury system.

Noted whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg praised Manning. Chelsea Manning is in jail again, this time for resisting a grand jury system whose secrecy and lack of witness rights makes it prone to frequent abuse, Ellsberg told Truthout. She is also resisting its current abuse, as it is used to attack freedom of the press by pursuing criminal charges for publication of the very war crimes and corruption she courageously revealed to WikiLeaks nine years ago.

Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.

Manning wrote, The grand jurys questions pertained to disclosures from nine years ago, and took place six years after an in-depth computer forensics case, in which I testified for almost a full day about these events. I stand by my previous public testimony.

Prosecutors inadvertently disclosed last summer that they had a sealed indictment against Assange. Since 2010, when WikiLeaks published the documents Manning leaked, the U.S. government has been gunning for Assange. The Obama administration had decided against trying to charge him because of fears that establishing a precedent that his actions were a crime could chill investigative journalism, Charlie Savage wrote in The New York Times.

Manning told the judge at her guilty plea hearing that no one at WikiLeaks asked or encouraged her to give them documents. No one associated with WLO [WikiLeaks Organization] pressured me into sending any more information, she said.

Before contacting WikiLeaks, Manning tried to interest The Washington Post in publishing the documents, but she received no response. She was also unsuccessful in contacting The New York Times.

At the age of 22, Pfc. Manning, who was an Army intelligence analyst, gave hundreds of thousands of classified Pentagon and State Department documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison. She ultimately served seven years, including time in pretrial custody, after Obama commuted the remainder of her sentence as he was leaving office.

Manning, a transgender woman, suffered in a male military prison and attempted suicide on two occasions in 2016. She was held in solitary confinement and was humiliated by being subjected to forced nudity during inspection for the first 11 months of her incarceration. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mndez characterized her treatment as cruel, inhuman and degrading. He couldnt determine whether it amounted to torture because he was not permitted to visit her under acceptable conditions.

On March 8, U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton in the Eastern District of Virginia held Manning in contempt and jailed her for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury. The prosecution had offered her immunity from prosecution if she testified, but she declined. Manning will remain in custody until she agrees to answer questions or when the term of the grand jury expires, whichever comes first.

Since she was offered immunity, Manning could not claim the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. But in refusing to answer questions, she invoked her rights under the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments.

I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to, particularly one that has been historically used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech, she said in a statement.

Indeed, prosecutors have utilized the grand jury as a tool to serve those in power. In periods of great turmoil and dissent, when the exploited and oppressed vocally expressed their views, often for the first time, the grand jury, rather than protecting the rights of the dissenters, stood on the side of the rich and powerful, to protect the status quo, civil rights attorney Michael Deutsch wrote in a law review article tracing the history of abuse by grand juries.

During the pre-Civil War, Civil War and Reconstruction periods, the grand jury was enlisted to enforce slavery laws, Deutsch noted. Southern grand juries often indicted outspoken abolitionists for sedition or inciting slaves. They charged people with harboring runaways or helping fugitives escape. Reconstruction-era grand juries were used to deny political participation and suffrage to Black people.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, grand juries assisted the government in quelling the militant labor movement, indicting thousands of labor organizers, union leaders, and activists on framed-up charges, ranging from unlawful assembly to murder and bombings, according to Deutsch.

Grand juries indicted hundreds of socialists, Wobblies and antiwar activists for espionage and sedition during World War I, Deutsch wrote. The government also used the grand jury to suppress the Black nationalist movement.

Alleged communists were investigated and indicted during the redbaiting of the Cold War period. Nixon-era grand juries targeted opponents of the Vietnam War and participants in womens liberation and Black nationalist movements.

Former Sen. Edward M. Kennedy described the Nixon grand jury as a new breed of political animal the kangaroo grand jury spawned in a dark corner of the Department of Justice, nourished by an administration bent on twisting law enforcement to serve its own political ends, a dangerous modern form of Star Chamber secret inquisition that is trampling the rights of American citizens from coast to coast.

In 1972, the National Lawyers Guild founded the Grand Jury Project and wrote a comprehensive manual on representing witnesses before grand juries. Subpoenaed witnesses developed a coordinated strategy of non-collaboration where they would refuse to answer questions even after being granted immunity and facing contempt. Once a witness answers a question, he or she cannot then refuse to answer others.

People who are subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury cannot have counsel present. The prosecutor holds all the cards. Federal grand juries failed to indict in only 11 of 162,000 cases in 2010, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported.

In 1969, Daniel Ellsberg, who was a high-ranking Pentagon official, smuggled out of his office at the RAND Corporation and made public a 7,000-page top secret report documenting the decision-making during the Vietnam War. It was the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg knew he would probably spend life in prison for his expos.

The release of the Pentagon Papers led to the end of the Nixon presidency, and also the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 Americans and 3 million Vietnamese died. Ellsbergs courageous act helped to hold accountable leaders who had begun and conducted an illegal and deadly war.

Manning follows in the valiant tradition of Ellsberg. The reports she leaked contain evidence of U.S. war crimes. One notable example is the Collateral Murder video, shot from inside a U.S. helicopter gunship as it fired on 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists, who were walking down a street in Baghdad. The U.S. soldiers then killed a man who was rescuing the wounded and they injured two children in his van. An American jeep drove over a body on the ground.

The actions of the U.S. soldiers depicted in that video amount to war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual, which prohibit the targeting of civilians, preventing rescue of the injured and defacing the dead.

Manning told the military tribunal during her guilty plea proceeding she was frustrated by her inability to convince her chain of command to investigate the Collateral Murder video and what she called war porn that was documented in the files she provided to WikiLeaks. I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene, she said. Manning was troubled by the attitude of the soldiers depicted in the video, who seemed to not value human life by referring to [their targets] as dead bastards.

The Afghan War Diary documents, which Manning also leaked, were posted on WikiLeaks in coordination with The New York Times, the German magazine Der Spiegel and the U.K. Guardian.

I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan, Manning said while pleading guilty.

It might cause society to reevaluate the need and even desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the [a]ffected environment everyday, she added.

Like Ellsbergs disclosures, Mannings revelations actually saved lives. After WikiLeaks published [her] documentation of Iraqi torture centers established by the United States, the Iraqi government refused Obamas request to extend immunity to U.S. soldiers who commit criminal and civil offenses there. As a result, Obama had to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, I wrote in 2013.

Manning knowingly risked her freedom then for truth-telling and actually suffered seven-and-a-half years in prison. I regard her as an American hero, and I admire her for what she is doing, risking and enduring right now, Ellsberg said. No one understands better than he does.

Here is the original post:
Daniel Ellsberg Calls Chelsea Manning an American Hero

Edward Snowden: ‘Fourth Amendment no longer exists’ – CNET

Posted on by

Edward Snowden NBC News

Is the Fourth Amendment dead? Edward Snowden seems to think so.

In an interview with NBC News that aired Wednesday night, the NSA whistleblower who leaked sensitive government documents through the media, said the amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures "as it was written no longer exists." Specifically, Snowden accused the US government of deciding in secret and without any public debate to separate the search and seizure aspects of the amendment.

"All of your private records," Snowden told NBC's Brian Williams. "All of your private communications, all of your transactions, all of your associations, who you talk to, who you love, what you buy, what you read, all of these things can be seized and then held by the government and then searched later for any reason, hardly without any justification, without any reason, without any real oversight, without any real accountability for those who do wrong."

As a result, Snowden said, the Fourth Amendment now no longer holds the same meaning it once held.

Snowden became famous or infamous, depending on one's perspective, after leaking documents from the National Security Agency that detailed government surveillance both in the US and abroad. The documents revealed an NSA program for the bulk collection of the phone records of Americans, a revelation that prompted concern and criticism from everyone from ordinary citizens to those in Congress. Since leaking the documents, Snowden has been in the crosshairs of the US government and is currently in asylum in Russia.

Further sharing his beliefs on government spying, Snowden told NBC that "now we have a system of pervasive, pre-criminal surveillance where the government wants to watch what you're doing just to see what you're up to, to see what you're thinking, even behind closed doors."

During the full interview, Snowden also spoke out about other issues, including his motivation for leaking the documents, his view of himself as a patriot, and his desire to return to the United States. And despite his dour opinion of the state of the Fourth Amendment, Snowden appeared encouraged by what he called the changes that have occurred in societies around the world since he leaked the classified files.

"A robust public debate," he said. "We're seeing new protections in the United States and abroad for our rights to make sure that they're no longer violated."

Snowden has certainly emerged as a controversial figure in the seemingly endless debate pitting security against privacy. Some have labeled him a patriot, others a traitor. A sampling of tweets gathered in the wake of the NBC interview found that as of 6 a.m. PT Thursday, 59 percent of Twitter users consider him a patriot, while 41 percent see him as a traitor.

Do you think Snowden is a patriot, a traitor, or something else? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Read the original here:
Edward Snowden: 'Fourth Amendment no longer exists' - CNET


« First...102030...1,6131,6141,6151,6161,617...1,6201,6301,640...Last »