China & Russia essentially give us the bird

[depotoo]

It says that he gave details, but then doesn't discuss those details. And it indicates that China's reasoning in allegedly helping him leave Hong Kong was simply to avoid a standoff with the U.S., not because he allegedly paid them off with secrets.

See, this is where youth doesn't think things through. I once didn't either. To avoid a standoff, yet it could have been no standoff if they had simply turned him over. And it would have created good will with us, one of their top trading partners.

Do you really think they would give their real reasons to that paper?

So why did you link to it?

To show you he has given them details which you asked for where that info came from. Come on, Kevin.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And neither do you... but we do know he released details to a newspaper in Hong Kong. Why would he do that? Just because he could? Would China and Hong Kong really be willing to create such tension with us over a man that you purport doesn't know much of anything? How much do we feed their economy each year vs. one man that gives them nothing...?

No, I don't, so I choose not to speculate about scenarios that I make up in my head that maybe could happen. I also never said he doesn't know much of anything. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he's given any sensitive information to foreign governments.

See, you are ignoring what you have already been told he has done. He gave details. It did not say he told them we were spying on them. That statement does not include details, and is something any country would already know happens, as they themselves do it.

And do you really think the US, doesn't know what access he did have? And what he could have in his hands? And the fact he has 4 computers full of data with him tells you he has much more than data just stating we spy on other countries. That would take only the smallest of drives to carry.

Yes, it says he gave details, and fails to elaborate on those details. Show me some evidence.

Why would you think that I would think that? All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he gave any sensitive information to these governments. I have no doubt he has more information than has been revealed, as the Guardian and Washington Post have both stated that they did not print much of the information given to them by Snowden as it was potentially harmful. My point is why would he give this information to journalists for free, when he could have sold it to China or Russia? The fact that he didn't, and there's no evidence indicating that he did, goes to show what his real aims were.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

See, this is where youth doesn't think things through. I once didn't either. To avoid a standoff, yet it could have been no standoff if they had simply turned him over. And it would have created good will with us, one of their top trading partners.

Do you really think they would give their real reasons to that paper?

So why did you link to it?

To show you he has given them details which you asked for where that info came from. Come on, Kevin.

You linked to an article which gives information about why China allowed him to leave, and then said it wasn't their real reasons. Contradicting your own link.

As for the "details," it doesn't give any of those details. It merely states that he did so without proving it, which is exactly what you did. Show me the evidence, not more unsubstantiated claims.

 

[depotoo]

So why did you link to it?

To show you he has given them details which you asked for where that info came from. Come on, Kevin.

You linked to an article which gives information about why China allowed him to leave, and then said it wasn't their real reasons. Contradicting your own link.

As for the "details," it doesn't give any of those details. It merely states that he did so without proving it, which is exactly what you did. Show me the evidence, not more unsubstantiated claims.

The link was for your question about where it said he had given them details. The article also just happen to include the other info as well.

Think for a minute about their reason in that article. They said it was to avoid a standoff with the US. If they had simply arrested him, and held him for us to come pick him up, what standoff would there have been? None, that I can think of. Thus I call bull on what they said their reason was for letting him go as it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To show you he has given them details which you asked for where that info came from. Come on, Kevin.

You linked to an article which gives information about why China allowed him to leave, and then said it wasn't their real reasons. Contradicting your own link.

As for the "details," it doesn't give any of those details. It merely states that he did so without proving it, which is exactly what you did. Show me the evidence, not more unsubstantiated claims.

The link was for your question about where it said he had given them details. The article also just happen to include the other info as well.

Think for a minute about their reason in that article. They said it was to avoid a standoff with the US. If they had simply arrested him, and held him for us to come pick him up, what standoff would there have been? None, that I can think of. Thus I call bull on what they said their reason was for letting him go as it makes absolutely no sense.

I have no doubt that they had many reasons for whatever part they played, or didn't play, in him leaving the country. Regardless, the point I've been making is that we can only speculate, so speaking as if you're some authority on the subject is ridiculous.

 

[depotoo]

No, I don't, so I choose not to speculate about scenarios that I make up in my head that maybe could happen. I also never said he doesn't know much of anything. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he's given any sensitive information to foreign governments.

See, you are ignoring what you have already been told he has done. He gave details. It did not say he told them we were spying on them. That statement does not include details, and is something any country would already know happens, as they themselves do it.

And do you really think the US, doesn't know what access he did have? And what he could have in his hands? And the fact he has 4 computers full of data with him tells you he has much more than data just stating we spy on other countries. That would take only the smallest of drives to carry.

Yes, it says he gave details, and fails to elaborate on those details. Show me some evidence.

Why would you think that I would think that? All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he gave any sensitive information to these governments. I have no doubt he has more information than has been revealed, as the Guardian and Washington Post have both stated that they did not print much of the information given to them by Snowden as it was potentially harmful. My point is why would he give this information to journalists for free, when he could have sold it to China or Russia? The fact that he didn't, and there's no evidence indicating that he did, goes to show what his real aims were.

And your acceptance that these countries would be willing to just let go a wanted fugitive we have asked them to hold, and risk the already precarious nature of those relationships over someone that offers them nothing, well... Believe as you like. And I do hope you are right, but life has taught me to be more critical and analytical.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

See, you are ignoring what you have already been told he has done. He gave details. It did not say he told them we were spying on them. That statement does not include details, and is something any country would already know happens, as they themselves do it.

And do you really think the US, doesn't know what access he did have? And what he could have in his hands? And the fact he has 4 computers full of data with him tells you he has much more than data just stating we spy on other countries. That would take only the smallest of drives to carry.

Yes, it says he gave details, and fails to elaborate on those details. Show me some evidence.

Why would you think that I would think that? All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he gave any sensitive information to these governments. I have no doubt he has more information than has been revealed, as the Guardian and Washington Post have both stated that they did not print much of the information given to them by Snowden as it was potentially harmful. My point is why would he give this information to journalists for free, when he could have sold it to China or Russia? The fact that he didn't, and there's no evidence indicating that he did, goes to show what his real aims were.

And your acceptance that these countries would be willing to just let go a wanted fugitive we have asked them to hold, and risk the already precarious nature of those relationships over someone that offers them nothing, well... Believe as you like. And I do hope you are right, but life has taught me to be more critical and analytical.

I'm saying that they have plenty of reasons, and that we can only speculate about what they are. So far there is no evidence he gave them anything. So all I can say for sure is that they allowed him to leave the country unimpeded. Now I have no doubt it was intended to be a stick in the eye of the U.S. government, but that wouldn't require the assistance of Snowden to do. You say you're more "critical and analytical," yet you accept the notion of "details" without wondering what those details are, or asking whether or not they even exist when you see no evidence of them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Watching Jay Carney now and he appears VERY upset.

Question:
If Obama reset or rebuilt relationships with these countries as he's claimed why are they thumbing their nose at us?

This whole scenario has made a mockery of us.

Who's "us?" Neither China nor Russia has thumbed their nose at me. Good on them for not turning over Snowden to be put in a hole like Bradley Manning was.

Exactly fuck congress they all should be tarred and feathered

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Watching Jay Carney now and he appears VERY upset.

Question:
If Obama reset or rebuilt relationships with these countries as he's claimed why are they thumbing their nose at us?

This whole scenario has made a mockery of us.

Who's "us?" Neither China nor Russia has thumbed their nose at me. Good on them for not turning over Snowden to be put in a hole like Bradley Manning was.

This thread isn't about YOU as an individual so get over yourself

Really aren't you concerned about the over reach of the government?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another president, one not so personally disliked, one that commanded at least a little respect might have achieved a different result.

Another president would not allow the citizens to be tracked.

 

[blackhawk]

Watching Jay Carney now and he appears VERY upset.

Question:
If Obama reset or rebuilt relationships with these countries as he's claimed why are they thumbing their nose at us?

This whole scenario has made a mockery of us.

Just one persons opinion here they don't give a flip about what we say or do and we have given them no reason to.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is only the beginning. obama isn't going to get cooperation for anything. Kerry is only making things worse.

 

[depotoo]

Yes, it says he gave details, and fails to elaborate on those details. Show me some evidence.

Why would you think that I would think that? All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he gave any sensitive information to these governments. I have no doubt he has more information than has been revealed, as the Guardian and Washington Post have both stated that they did not print much of the information given to them by Snowden as it was potentially harmful. My point is why would he give this information to journalists for free, when he could have sold it to China or Russia? The fact that he didn't, and there's no evidence indicating that he did, goes to show what his real aims were.

And your acceptance that these countries would be willing to just let go a wanted fugitive we have asked them to hold, and risk the already precarious nature of those relationships over someone that offers them nothing, well... Believe as you like. And I do hope you are right, but life has taught me to be more critical and analytical.

I'm saying that they have plenty of reasons, and that we can only speculate about what they are. So far there is no evidence he gave them anything. So all I can say for sure is that they allowed him to leave the country unimpeded. Now I have no doubt it was intended to be a stick in the eye of the U.S. government, but that wouldn't require the assistance of Snowden to do. You say you're more "critical and analytical," yet you accept the notion of "details" without wondering what those details are, or asking whether or not they even exist when you see no evidence of them.

You see Kevin, you say they have plenty of reasons - speculating, just as I am, we are no different in that - just on 2 different things. My reasoning and yours just go in different directions - mine due to history, yours, I don't know other than you want to believe this guy only wanted us to know about US spying on us. I do know he has been in touch with Assange and wikileaks, and they state they are helping him, supposedly with his recent bid for asylum in Ecuador, who has given Assange asylum as well. I also know that Assange is guilty of throwing out there for the world to see all the classified material that Manning stole from the US, without any regard of how it could endanger anyone. The only difference between them is one was a reporter that revealed classified info from the US and one actually stole the information here, as Manning did - Snowden. What does he have to offer Assange? Anything?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And your acceptance that these countries would be willing to just let go a wanted fugitive we have asked them to hold, and risk the already precarious nature of those relationships over someone that offers them nothing, well... Believe as you like. And I do hope you are right, but life has taught me to be more critical and analytical.

I'm saying that they have plenty of reasons, and that we can only speculate about what they are. So far there is no evidence he gave them anything. So all I can say for sure is that they allowed him to leave the country unimpeded. Now I have no doubt it was intended to be a stick in the eye of the U.S. government, but that wouldn't require the assistance of Snowden to do. You say you're more "critical and analytical," yet you accept the notion of "details" without wondering what those details are, or asking whether or not they even exist when you see no evidence of them.

You see Kevin, you say they have plenty of reasons - speculating, just as I am, we are no different in that - just on 2 different things. My reasoning and yours just go in different directions - mine due to history, yours, I don't know other than you want to believe this guy only wanted us to know about US spying on us. I do know he has been in touch with Assange and wikileaks, and they state they are helping him, supposedly with his recent bid for asylum in Ecuador, who has given Assange asylum as well. I also know that Assange is guilty of throwing out there for the world to see all the classified material that Manning stole from the US, without any regard of how it could endanger anyone. The only difference between them is one was a reporter that revealed classified info from the US and one actually stole the information here, as Manning did - Snowden. What does he have to offer Assange? Anything?

Yes, and I made a clear distinction between what I can say for sure, and my own speculations, which you did not. Opting instead to throw out your speculations as if they were facts. It is also a myth that WikiLeaks did not vet the information that they released, as they were working with numerous other organizations like the New York Times at different points in time. So Assange is guilty of nothing. I see no evidence that Assange and WikiLeaks are doing anything other than helping out somebody who believes in similar ideals. As you say, what does he have to offer them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are people defending what the government has done?

 

[edthecynic]

This is a serious question. Did he really offer to sell this information? Do you have sources for that? I ask, because I do not get cable news, and this is the first that i have heard of this. If you have sound sources for this allegation, it would definately change my way of thinking about him.

The simple fact he has 4 computers with him full of classified intellgence along with much printed data as well as his cavorting with the likes of China, Russia, etc. is enough to make anyone in their right mind cringe. They know he has this info due to all the reporting. The 4 computers were mentioned in the daily briefing with Jay Carney.

If he wanted China and Russia to have this information why did he go to Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman, two journalists, for nothing, rather than selling it to those governments?

He used those Marxist Socialists to announce to the bidders what he had to sell, namely that he possessed the “full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth.” That was announced to the bidders through Greenwald.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why are people defending what the government has done?

As far as I can tell, most people don't bother. They completely ignore the fact and try to make Snowden the issue instead.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The simple fact he has 4 computers with him full of classified intellgence along with much printed data as well as his cavorting with the likes of China, Russia, etc. is enough to make anyone in their right mind cringe. They know he has this info due to all the reporting. The 4 computers were mentioned in the daily briefing with Jay Carney.

If he wanted China and Russia to have this information why did he go to Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman, two journalists, for nothing, rather than selling it to those governments?

He used those Marxist Socialists to announce to the bidders what he had to sell, namely that he possessed the “full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth.” That was announced to the bidders through Greenwald.

Prove it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why are people defending what the government has done?

As far as I can tell, most people don't bother. They completely ignore the fact and try to make Snowden the issue instead.

It's a fucking shame how fucked up some people are.

 

[edthecynic]

More speculation. You have no idea whether that's the reason they let him go or not.

And neither do you... but we do know he released details to a newspaper in Hong Kong. Why would he do that? Just because he could? Would China and Hong Kong really be willing to create such tension with us over a man that you purport doesn't know much of anything? How much do we feed their economy each year vs. one man that gives them nothing...?

No, I don't, so I choose not to speculate about scenarios that I make up in my head that maybe could happen. I also never said he doesn't know much of anything. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence he's given any sensitive information to foreign governments.

Come on, have you been living in a vacuum?

EXCLUSIVE: Snowden reveals more US cyberspying details | South China Morning Post


EXCLUSIVE: Snowden reveals more US cyberspying details
Text messages mined, while servers at Tsinghua University attacked
Sunday, 23 June, 2013, 7:18pm
Lana Lam and Stephen Chen in Beijing

US spies are hacking into Chinese mobile phone companies to steal text messages and attacking the servers at Tsinghua University, Edward Snowden has told the Sunday Morning Post.

The latest explosive revelations about US National Security Agency cybersnooping in Hong Kong and on the mainland are based on further scrutiny and clarification of information Snowden provided on June 12.

The former technician for the US Central Intelligence Agency and contractor for the National Security Agency provided documents revealing attacks on computers over a four-year period.

The documents listed operational details of specific attacks on computers, including internet protocol (IP) addresses, dates of attacks and whether a computer was still being monitored remotely.

The Sunday Morning Post can now reveal Snowden's claims that the NSA is:

Extensive hacking of major telecommunication companies in China to access text messages

Sustained attacks on network backbones at Tsinghua University, China’s premier seat of learning

Hacking of computers at the Hong Kong headquarters of Pacnet, which owns one of the most extensive fibre optic submarine cable networks in the region
Pacnet, which recently signed major deals with the mainland's top mobile phone companies, owns more than 46,000 kilometres of fibre-optic cables. The cables connect its regional data centres across the Asia-Pacific region, including Hong Kong, the mainland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. It also has offices in the US.

Snowden claims that data from Chinese mobile phone companies has been compromised, with millions of private text messages mined by the NSA.

Cybersecurity experts on the mainland have long feared mobile phone companies had fallen victim to back-door attacks because they were forced to go overseas to buy core technology for their networks. In recent years, those security concerns became more vocal and as a result domestic network equipment suppliers such as Huawai, Datang and ZTE started to close the technology gap, enabling the phone companies to reduce their reliance on foreign suppliers.

As for the attacks at Tsinghua University, the leaked information points to the NSA hacking into the institute's servers as recently as January.

Tsinghua is widely regarded as China's top education and research institute and carries out extensive work on next-generation web technologies.

It is home to one of the mainland's six major network backbones, the China Education and Research Network.