Snowden copied co-worker's password

[Asclepias]

More nonsense uncritically accepted. What evidence is there that he gave information to foreign governments?

The fact that he is alive and in Russia is the evidence. You must not know how this works.

So none then, in other words. You forget that the Russian government likes to stick it to the U.S. government any chance they can get. Since the U.S. forced Snowden to stay in Russia they gave them a perfect opportunity.

No those are you words. Like I said you must not know how this works. He is in Russia and alive only because he has revealed information. You cant possibly be that naive.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yeah. They spied on an American like Major Nidal Hassan contacting American Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen.

There won't be any more terrorism from those two.

Dismantle the NSA and you can kiss protection from radical Islamists goodbye.

Snowden is an unwitting accomplice to Islamist terrorism.

Regards from Rosie

The NSA is spying on much more than terrorism suspects. They have admitted as much, after Snowden leaked that information.

And you really want to use Nidal Hasan as an example? He successfully carried out his attack. The NSA didn't stop him from doing a damn thing.

do know they stopped the Times Square Bomber.

And they certainly are not going to tell you or me who else they have stopped.

AND their Intel got justice for the 13 Ft. Hood soldiers.

Snowden wants Americans to have NONE of that.

I know I am not doing anything important - including this post - so why are you afraid of the NSA collecting Intel?

Regards from Rosie

They did NOT stop the TImes Square Bomber. A hot dog vendor stopped the Times Square Bomber. The NSA could not stop the underwear bomber AFTER the man's father called the NSA to tell them what was happening. Let's not even go to the Tsarnaev brothers that the NSA couldn't be bothered with AFTER getting warnings from Russia.

It seems like the NSA is bound to HELP islamic terrorists and punish Americans.

 

[Katzndogz]

The fact that he is alive and in Russia is the evidence. You must not know how this works.

So none then, in other words. You forget that the Russian government likes to stick it to the U.S. government any chance they can get. Since the U.S. forced Snowden to stay in Russia they gave them a perfect opportunity.

No those are you words. Like I said you must not know how this works. He is in Russia and alive only because he has revealed information. You cant possibly be that naive.

He is alive only because he's in Russia. If he were here he'd be dead like Michael Hastings, Aaron Swarz and Tom Clancy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fact that he is alive and in Russia is the evidence. You must not know how this works.

So none then, in other words. You forget that the Russian government likes to stick it to the U.S. government any chance they can get. Since the U.S. forced Snowden to stay in Russia they gave them a perfect opportunity.

No those are you words. Like I said you must not know how this works. He is in Russia and alive only because he has revealed information. You cant possibly be that naive.

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

 

[Asclepias]

So none then, in other words. You forget that the Russian government likes to stick it to the U.S. government any chance they can get. Since the U.S. forced Snowden to stay in Russia they gave them a perfect opportunity.

No those are you words. Like I said you must not know how this works. He is in Russia and alive only because he has revealed information. You cant possibly be that naive.

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

I'm not in court. I'm on a message board. You not knowing what you are talking about is naive. I guess it takes all types.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No those are you words. Like I said you must not know how this works. He is in Russia and alive only because he has revealed information. You cant possibly be that naive.

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

I'm not in court. I'm on a message board. You not knowing what you are talking about is naive. I guess it takes all types.

You're right, you're not in court, but anybody worth their salt still realizes that they need evidence to make an accusation. Those who don't are simply regarded as clowns.

 

[Asclepias]

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

I'm not in court. I'm on a message board. You not knowing what you are talking about is naive. I guess it takes all types.

You're right, you're not in court, but anybody worth their salt still realizes that they need evidence to make an accusation. Those who don't are simply regarded as clowns.

You just made an accusation without any proof. Are you now a clown or simply an ass hat?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not in court. I'm on a message board. You not knowing what you are talking about is naive. I guess it takes all types.

You're right, you're not in court, but anybody worth their salt still realizes that they need evidence to make an accusation. Those who don't are simply regarded as clowns.

You just made an accusation without any proof. Are you now a clown or simply an ass hat?

I actually didn't make an accusation, per se, but I suppose I did in an offhand manner. I defined clown as somebody who makes accusations without evidence, and then indirectly accused you of being a clown. I submit as evidence the fact that you have accused Edward Snowden of giving intelligence to foreign governments, namely Russia, and have put forward no evidence to back up this claim whatsoever. So no, I did not make an accusation without proof. This thread is proof.

 

[Asclepias]

You're right, you're not in court, but anybody worth their salt still realizes that they need evidence to make an accusation. Those who don't are simply regarded as clowns.

You just made an accusation without any proof. Are you now a clown or simply an ass hat?

I actually didn't make an accusation, per se, but I suppose I did in an offhand manner. I defined clown as somebody who makes accusations without evidence, and then indirectly accused you of being a clown. I submit as evidence the fact that you have accused Edward Snowden of giving intelligence to foreign governments, namely Russia, and have put forward no evidence to back up this claim whatsoever. So no, I did not make an accusation without proof. This thread is proof.

There is no if and's, or per says about it. You made an accusation without any evidence clown.

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

You dont know what evidence I have clown.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You just made an accusation without any proof. Are you now a clown or simply an ass hat?

I actually didn't make an accusation, per se, but I suppose I did in an offhand manner. I defined clown as somebody who makes accusations without evidence, and then indirectly accused you of being a clown. I submit as evidence the fact that you have accused Edward Snowden of giving intelligence to foreign governments, namely Russia, and have put forward no evidence to back up this claim whatsoever. So no, I did not make an accusation without proof. This thread is proof.

There is no if and's, or per says about it. You made an accusation without any evidence clown.

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

You dont know what evidence I have clown.

What accusation did I make without evidence?

 

[Asclepias]

I actually didn't make an accusation, per se, but I suppose I did in an offhand manner. I defined clown as somebody who makes accusations without evidence, and then indirectly accused you of being a clown. I submit as evidence the fact that you have accused Edward Snowden of giving intelligence to foreign governments, namely Russia, and have put forward no evidence to back up this claim whatsoever. So no, I did not make an accusation without proof. This thread is proof.

There is no if and's, or per says about it. You made an accusation without any evidence clown.

The "You can't possibly be that naive" argument wouldn't hold up in court. Either you have evidence or you don't. In your case, you don't.

You dont know what evidence I have clown.

What accusation did I make without evidence?

That I didn't have any evidence. Are you now pretending you cant read or are you caught in a trap of your own words and nervously trying to laugh it off?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no if and's, or per says about it. You made an accusation without any evidence clown.



You dont know what evidence I have clown.

What accusation did I make without evidence?

That I didn't have any evidence. Are you now pretending you cant read or are you caught in a trap of your own words and nervously trying to laugh it off?

Once again, this thread is proof. If you had any evidence, you'd have brought it forward rather than alluding to it well after the fact as some last desperate act of somebody with nothing else to say.

 

[Asclepias]

What accusation did I make without evidence?

That I didn't have any evidence. Are you now pretending you cant read or are you caught in a trap of your own words and nervously trying to laugh it off?

Once again, this thread is proof. If you had any evidence, you'd have brought it forward rather than alluding to it well after the fact as some last desperate act of somebody with nothing else to say.

You just made another assumption and claim without evidence. Why would I show you any evidence and how would I do that? You cant be this dumb. You must be trolling me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That I didn't have any evidence. Are you now pretending you cant read or are you caught in a trap of your own words and nervously trying to laugh it off?

Once again, this thread is proof. If you had any evidence, you'd have brought it forward rather than alluding to it well after the fact as some last desperate act of somebody with nothing else to say.

You just made another assumption and claim without evidence. Why would I show you any evidence and how would I do that? You cant be this dumb. You must be trolling me.

Watch out folks, we've got ourselves a genuine government agent here. Top level security clearance.

 

[Asclepias]

Once again, this thread is proof. If you had any evidence, you'd have brought it forward rather than alluding to it well after the fact as some last desperate act of somebody with nothing else to say.

You just made another assumption and claim without evidence. Why would I show you any evidence and how would I do that? You cant be this dumb. You must be trolling me.

Watch out folks, we've got ourselves a genuine government agent here. Top level security clearance.

Watch out folks we have a clown that keeps tripping over his own words that he used to make a point.

 

[DennyO]

So much that has been revealed ultimately shows the NSA as sloppy, bordering on incompetent.

Giving contractors access to top secret data.
Lack of control on data access, no apparent mechanism to restrict tech support people to just the their own assigned areas of responsibility.
The apparent ease of removing data with a thumb drive.

And, now this, the lamest of all, Snowden simply copied a fellow employee's password? No retina scan or thumb print technology here of all places?

It makes me think that the real crime of of Snowden, in the eyes of the NSA management, is the embarrassment he caused them, these folks running what they likely thought, or claimed, was a world class high security operation, that actually leaks like a sieve. To give a bit of credit to Snowden, he seemed to focus on the embarrassing stuff, he has not revealed names of operatives or the like that would put NSA or CIA workers in danger, rather the allegations just put the NSA and government leadership in political and diplomatic hot water.

 

[Yurt]

if he had done this while bush was president, you would call him a hero for exposing bush's crimes

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

“Was the privacy of your co-workers considered while you were stealing their log-in and password information?” Snowden was asked during the chat.

“With all due respect to Mark Hosenball, the Reuters report that put this out there was simply wrong,” Snowden replied. “I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers.”

In response to a request for comment, Jesselyn Radack, a legal adviser to Snowden in the U.S., said, “Edward Snowden stands by his denial on Jan. 23. NSA has a documented history of scapegoating innocent employees for its own failures, … manufacturing evidence against them and misleading Congress.”

Exclusive: Snowden Swiped Password From NSA Coworker - NBC News

Snowden denies the allegations by the NSA, and the NSA has released no evidence to support these allegations. Furthermore, they have a history of lying, including James Clapper perjuring himself before Congress. Who to believe?