Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What part of the report is vague? If he revealed intelligence sources do you expect them to not redact the source's name?


The citations you gave were textbook examples of vague statements.

They said there were 13 risks and that 8 would be bad/endanger troops if China and or Russia were aware. That’s it. How many troops? Endanger them how? What kind of information are talking about? Sources and methods? Weapons systems? Other technology? Literally any detail???

I understand your position is that “they’re in a bind”. Well, there shouldn’t have squandered their reputation by lying about major issues facing the American people like war making, mass surveillance, illegal activities, etc.

Finally, the sheer number of documents he extracted was a red herring/immaterial to nation security. All that matters is content.

Edit: a move careful reading of the report demonstrates that the 1.5 million number appears to only refer to the number of non blank documents that were downloaded, it is not at all clear that the is any way for the government to get a precise measurement of what Snowden actually took with him to Hong Kong and disclosed. Anything that hasn’t been disclosed in public would therefore be purely speculative on the part of the US government.

Edit 2: a more careful reading of the section that outlines how he took the documents shows that “removed” simply constitutes the number of documents that he downloaded off of the respective NSA networks onto his local machines while at work. It says nothing about what he actually took offsite. Everything in the risk assessments are purely speculative based on what he had access to from the automated downloads he implemented.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: