The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Edward Snowden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Edward Snowden. Show all posts

Thursday, April 17, 2014

"Spy Vs. Spy" Did Putin Declare He and Snowden As 'Agents?"


I fully realize many of you hold views of Edward Snowden that are diametrically opposite my position. His existential espionage and revelations related to NSA meat-data gathering, archiving and operation use quite literally places him in direct violation of the terms of his Top Secret Security Clearance. 

Snowden's frequently abused the trust of his cohorts in Hawaii via use of their system passwords. He enacted classic manipulation for purpose of acquiring information to which he did not have access, as a technician. And, he acquired secrets beyond his "need to know." for the express purpose of sharing with others who, like it or not, did not have the need to know.  If that shoe fits you or me, we have to wear it. Do we really have that level of need to know in the context that Snowden may have crippled US INTEL for decades to come? 

I seriously hope no one retorts or counters with comment about the US Constitution. With due respect to the document and its purpose in the late 1700s, it was developed at a time when the word "electronic" was not part of human language. Armed conflict in the 1700s consisted do standing firing lines with ball and musket firearms, or via skirmish ambushes with no prospects of bullets reaching the point of annihilation of society. 

And now the focus of this piece......



Putin in KGB uniform


Alas, a proper representation of Edward Snowden.  While, I strongly suspect USA Today was playing on words and on the dynamics of Snowden's pre-recorded "softest of ball" questions to Putin.



Putin as FSB director, 
1 January 1998

Before we go any farther, think for a second. Even, if you are a hardcore Snowden lover of moderate Snowden sympathizer, do you really believe Vladimir Putin would sit on that stage and answer "yes" to monitoring and archiving (storing for review and cross analyses) electronic communication? 

Come-on work with me a bit now, do you really believe there is answer other than "No." And, do you really think Putin would simply answer the question without leveraging major opportunity to international intrigue coupled with a slap against the US.  




Russian INTEL at SOCHI: Linked, Linked, Linked NBC Video.How does Putin start his response to Snowden's "slow-pitch" softball questions? 
 "Mr. Snowden, you are a former agent, a spy, I used to be working for an intelligence service. We are going to talk one professional language," Putin said, according to a translation by news channel Russia Today. "First of all, our intelligence efforts are strictly regulated by our law ...
Comrade Technician?
Really?  My reading to date has Putin as a contracted technician who leveraged his espionage skills to abscond security passwords from many co-workers. I do not recall references to Snowden as an "former agent, spy." Putin in contrast was an active KGB (KSB) agent who performed serve the Soviet Union/Russian spy agency of the level of full colonel and agency director. Of course, Putin's response, if not complete stage with Snowden's complicity (which I suspect was the case), was as a minimum focused to massage Snowden's bulging and well oiled ego.  

Let's take a ride through Snowden and Putin's exhibition. 

http://usat.ly/QgNs71



Do you truly believe Snowden is naive enough to expect Putin to say anything other than his carefully crafted and uniquely delivered comment?  I can only surmise complicity in a video ploy that fits Putin's Cold War, psyche and efforts to revive Russia as a world power vs a regional disrupter. 

Regardless of your opinion of James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, his the chief of our intelligence entities. It is unfortunate, but INTEL in industrial nations equates to maintaining national security or, conversely, a lack there of.  CNN reported on Clapper's reaction to question of INTEL monitoring last January.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/wo....
Excerpt
In January, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Snowden leaks caused serious damage to U.S. security.  
"What Snowden has stolen and exposed has gone way, way beyond his professed concerns with so-called domestic surveillance programs," Clapper said then. "As a result, we've lost critical foreign intelligence collection sources, including some shared with us by valued partners." 
The nation's adversaries were "going to school on U.S. intelligence sources' methods and trade craft, and the insights that they are gaining are making our job much, much harder," he told the committee.
The matter is far more serious than our reaction to collection of Meta data.  Moreover,  NSA monitoring started in 2001 and was revealed/validated via AT&T's revelation of compliance with NSA operations in San Francisco as recently as 2006. Those reports were also initiated by a "so-called" whistleblower who did not run off to China or Russia. Snowden has admitted to seeking contractor jobs for the express purpose of seeking information against NSA operations, thus the US Government. 

If Snowden is properly classified as an "agent" as per Putin, for whom did he perpetrate his acts of espionage?  

He has, in the past, expressed an affinity for Ron Paul. Could Snowden serve as an agent for "anarcho" libertarians like Paul?   As Intel officials actually believe Snowden works: "under the influence of Russian intelligence services.”

The softball interview certainly appears as staged. Would it take much convincing to buy into my posit, Putin knew the question was coming his way?

StumbleUpon

Friday, February 21, 2014

Pussy Riot Reminds Of Why Snowden's Choices Raise Antennas!




Let's set the stage a bit.   I am not in any way a supporter of Edward Snowden, his ideology, his affinity for what appears as  (Ayn Rand) libertarianism, and I have total contempt for the danger he may have laid upon US Intelligence gathering.  

Oh, yes you say, "Hero", you say, "Whistle-blower", you say, "Big brother privacy violations"; you may not realize the web of danger inherent in your support and praise.   There is nothing noble and honorable about INTEL. It is a crusty business that has led directly to all victories during was and a lack there of generally accompanies lost wars.  You say we should not have war. I say same, but we both speak idyllically and from a realm not born-out by the history of humanity. Man will involve in conflict and war. 

Briefly, a few cases where Intel won battles or won wars. I realize the following could rile those who feel the nation should live without the thought of war and military conflict. However, we live in a world without Bush/Cheney starting wars, but we nonetheless live with ever-present threats that place the nation (you and me) at great risk.

I. Code-breakers in Midway Island led to destruction the Japanese fleet. With-out good INTEL the US could not have won Pacific Island battles in WW II.

II. English deciphers of German Enigma Code messages led to destruction Hitler's submarine fleet and disarmed Grand-Admiral Doenitz's "Wolf Packs."

The Capture of Grand-Admiral Doenitz - May 1945
Along with Albert Speer and Colonel Alfreed Jodl












Dr Albert Speer (left), with Admiral Doenitz and Colonel Alfred Jodl after their arrest on 23 May 1945.



III. INTEL in war and impact on battles   

IV. CIA the decisive impact of INTEL in wars


V. General Armstrong Custer died at the Little Bighorn due to faulty INTEL. He pursued his ill-fated mission of punishing the northern nation/tribes of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Gall with the ultimate goal of herding the people into reservations.

Military History About Dot Com
Moving to Battle:

The village that Custer's Crow scouts saw was one of the largest ever gatherings of Plains Native Americans. Called together by the Hunkpapa Lakota holy man Sitting Bull, the encampment consisted of several tribes and numbered as high as 1,800 warriors and their families. Among the noted leaders in the village were Crazy Horse and Gall. Despite the size of the village, Custer moved forward on faulty intelligence provided by Indian Agents which suggested that the hostile Native American force in the region numbered around 800, only slightly more than the 7th Cavalry's size.

The value of INTEL or lack there of!  Imagine Custer with proper and accurate INTEL indicating as many as 1800 warriors vs the erroneous figure of eight-hundred (800). He might have forsaken his now famous response to orders to traverse with Gattling Guns and Woodruff guns (small artillery) ordinance on his mission. The young general opted to live by his cavalry DNA that dictated his affinity for speed in deployment. The Gatling Gun and small artillery would have slowed his columns against the Original Native North American warriors. Think about the Little Big Horn if Custer had followed orders and deployed with heavier weapons. Accurate INTEL may have overcome his ego driven affinity for the speed of cavalry forces. He may have lived to fight another day.

Yes, military digression can be boring. The reality is, General Armstrong Custer, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, and Grand-Admiral Doenitz are irrefutable examples of how INTEL failures equal battles and wars lost.

Since, it is now obvious Putin's re-election to leadership in Russia means revisiting the Cold War, I find it intriguing Edward Snowden has snuggled-up and hunkered down there.

I suggest Snowden is as dangerous to the greater society than the "Indian Agents" (as there were called) underestimating the size of Siting Bull's warrior forces.  How about a deep look at the US "Traitor?" If you really like "Whistleblower" or "Hero", your prerogative, but remember he used subterfuge and surreptitious activities while using people to secure secrets to which he did not have access.  He subsequently released the stolen "booty" (excuse the pun), with declarations of satisfaction regarding his success in divulging INTEL capabilities. How is Snowden different from: Robert Hanssen, John Anthony Walker and son, and Jonathon Pollard (spy for Israel)?  

Edward Snowden is.....



A Ron Paul "subject" (a), (b)

NBC News
View image on Twitter
Snowden says he is working to improve the NSA http://wapo.st/1c2nsCv 
"For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission's already accomplished," he said in the interview, which was accompanied by what appeared to be new pictures. "I already won." 
“As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated,” he said. “I didn't want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself."

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell devoted last night's REWRITE, to Snowden and the most recent case of Russian authoritarianism that frankly reminds of Soviet Union Cold War oppression of the individual.

http://on.msnbc.com/1cw5zxp




Glenn Beck's The Blaze also finds Snowden a "bag of  tricks" (My words). 




StumbleUpon

Friday, February 14, 2014

Edward Snowden And Manipulated Co-Workers! INTEL Secrets Harvested Like Ripe Grapes...

Edward Snowden: SPY!
A matter of definition

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Espionage
: the things that are done to find out secrets from enemies or competitors : the activity of spying

Full Definition of 
: the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company espionage

WIKI (Espionage)
Espionage or spying involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information.[1] Espionage is inherently clandestine, as it is taken for granted that it is unwelcome and, in many cases illegal and punishable by law. It is a subset of intelligence gathering, which otherwise may be conducted from public sources and using perfectly legal and ethical means. It is crucial to distinguish espionage from intelligence gathering, as the latter does not necessarily involve espionage, but often collates open-source information.

Espionage is often part of an institutional effort by a government or commercial concern. However, the term is generally associated with state spying on potential or actual enemies primarily for military purposes. Spying involving corporations is known as industrial espionage.

One of the most effective ways to gather data and information about the enemy (or potential enemy) is by infiltrating the enemy's ranks. This is the job of the spy (espionage agent).


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
_____________________________________

Regardless of your affinity or lack there of for Edward Snowden, it is fruitless to argue the merits of his espionage. Fruitless because those who feel he is a hero will not budge in from their opinion. On the other end of the void, those who feel Snowden practiced espionage and is a patriot will not budge from their positions. I used the word void for purpose of delineation. There is no continuum or spectrum from which two opposites can sit and LOB (line of bearing) point and counter point arguments.  And there is no middle ground.  

I am a stuck-like glue denizen in the camp Snowden practiced surreptitious espionage and by default has harmed national security.

Privacy? 

Well, yes if I actually felt the NSA and CIA had my phone tapped (I would still have no worries, but would be major irritated), or if collecting of Meta-data was not at the root of the NSA mission I would be concerned. In fact, my level of irritation with the USA Today's 2006 revelations about AT&T/NSA phone monitoring left me with a degree of angst. My concern did not boil-over to the point of rationalizing the need for anyone to steal states technology secrets, as did Snowden. As I read the article (linked above), my mind wandered back to 2001 when the monitoring programs first came to our national security defense arsenal. It took a nano-second thereafter to reflect back on the morning of 9/11. We do not live in the same world as our successes in WW II.  And, we damned well do not live in the same world as those who crafted a document framing the development of a nation and revolt against England. And, defense security involves a lot more than Paul Revere's too late warning of the "British are coming."

We live in a world where a narrow technological edge can make all the difference should our leaders fail humanity and go to world war or large scale war. Only our defense security professionals know the capability of the Chinese, Russian, Iranians and North Koreans. As I read reports of the NSA monitoring 35 world leaders, the words in those articles fell on disinterested brain cells.  Last week's revelation of what appeared a Russian release of a private conversation among US diplomatic staff placed INTEL in true perspective. A release for the sole purpose of embarrassing the US. Critical issues, but small fish when compared to this: Iinked.

You might think the former Navy INTEL guy giving secrets to Russia is not an apple to apple comparison to Snowden's misdeeds.  I would ask you to pick up both apples and look a little closer. INTEL is at the heart of all military victories (thus national security). Any information an adversary nation can dollop from Snowden's espionage, will be used against the US. A fact impossible to refute.

While the ultimate fault (s) regarding Snowden's escapades lie with federal government dependence on contractors, buddyism, and lax contractor security background checks, there is more than enough blame to spread to Snowden and his self-centered ideology.

I find Snowden a mixed bag of ingredients that have turned the nation into a shameful place. Snowden seems to have an affinity for Libertarianism and he seems to relish the limelight of both small and large arenas.    He has expressed an affinity for Ron Paul (A dire situation to say the least) and he apparently experienced an INTEL about-face after Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008/09. As of today, we have more revelations about a character I find much like the former Navy INTEL guy referenced in the BBC article (linked above). 

Snowden addressed a TV camera with an English audience this past Christmas with declarations of "I have won," within two months we see reports of self-centeredness characteristic of and pre-requisite to any espionage agent.
"I have won!"  Snowden relished in self-aggrandizing glee  on a worldwide scale. Today we read that as many as 25 co-workers may have stupidly allowed the espionage agent access to passwords by signing him on with their access.  Snowden, the crafty 007 like-thief, was able to retrieve the passwords of his gullible co-workers and had a  picnic securing secrets to which he did not have access.

Excerpt 
The question of how Snowden was able to obtain as much classified material as he did while working at a remote NSA station in Hawaii has been the subject of intensive investigation by the U.S. intelligence community for months. 
Reuters reporters Mark Hosenball and Warren Strobel reported in November that Snowden used login credential and passwords provided “unwittingly” by colleagues at the Hawaii spy base. The Reuters report said Snowden “may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers” to give him their passwords. But the NSA never publicly commented on that report and Snowden appeared to deny it during a public Google chat on Jan. 23. 
“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.”
Think of the person who would toss the careers of 20 to 25 cohorts into the trash as a by-product of his quest for , "I have won." 

Edward Snowden is far, far from a hero in my mind. Obviously, he revealed truths regarding the NSA, but his motive seems as flawed as any US spy caught and now serving prison time. And, I can only see advantage to  adversary nation's INTEL operations
StumbleUpon

Friday, February 7, 2014

Edward Snowden, "Where Art Thou and Glenn Greenwood?


Seriously Comrade?

Russian Intrusion into Internet and cell phone privacy? In what country is Edward Snowden neatly tucked away? 

OK, so there is probably a difference in the following segment from The Rachel Maddow Show and espionage performed by Edward Snowden, but on close scrutiny hypocrisy and phoniness exudes.

Maddow's segment focuses on hacker's intrusions into the cell phones of visitors to Russia. How do we know those hackers are not part of the Russia INTEL community?   

http://on.msnbc.com/LVvuVf



We wonder how Snowden and Greenwald feel about this gem?
http://on.msnbc.com/LVvXGY






StumbleUpon

Thursday, January 30, 2014

New York Times's Flaw Redaction, NSA Agent, And News Skirmishes

Re-blog via Post.US and links from Bob Cesca's The Daily Banter.   We thank Bob for allowing linkage to his piece. 


        


Prism collection above (Click Image for larger version and link to The Atlantic)


Earlier in the week, I read the following from Bob Cesca's The Daily Banter web page: Linked.  Before you read any farther, know that I agree wholeheartedly with Cesca's contempt for Edward Snowden and the surreptitious way he wormed into employment with an NSA contractor for the sole purpose of espionage. Some call the man a "whistleblower" and he has just been nominated for a Nobel Prize. We prefer libertarian traitor who has perpetrated espionage. Our libertarian assumption regarding Snowden is based in his affinity for Ron Paul and lack of evidence he is not similarly inclined socially and politically towards libertarianism.

In  case you feel I am callous and uncaring regarding invasions of privacy, think again and appreciate my knowledge of world events. My knowledge of potential privacy invasions goes back to 2011 and George W. Bush/Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's security measures in response to 9/11.  Our knowledge of NSA and FBI monitoring was again ignited in 2006 with all major phone carriers compiled with NSA monitoring. Qwest is the only major carrier to deny NSA request for monitoring joint-operations. We are unaware if Qwest remains defiant in meta-data monitoring programs. 

USA Today May 2006....

Excerpt
AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers. 
The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans. 
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.  
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.

The salient point is, I am past alarm at measures taken to help ward-off potential threats to the nation. I also understand the value and leverage of INTEL that places the US far ahead of adversaries. Value and leverage probably lost due to Snowden's self-anointed 'white knight' actions.

Awareness of the 2006 revelations and and absence of follow-up indicating cessation of monitoring facilitated quick assimilation of an item that strained relations between newly elected President Obama and his electronic security experts. The experts attempted to break Obama away from his BlackBerry. Obama refused to give-up his prefer communication "toy"; his security experts worked (at great expense) to tamper proof his BlackBerry. If a person was a thinking person during that period and recall the tug-of-war over the BlackBerry, the person should have realized the kerfuffle was due to the experts knowledge of cell phone vulnerability. Of course, what as individual know comes from personal knowledge and experience. If I know how to break into a safe, and I am hired to protect the safe, I am going to use my knowledge to prop-up "safe" security. Electronic security experts knew their level of INTEL gathering via the cell phone, why leave a president vulnerable? So, the phone kerfuffle subsided with Obama's hyper-secured cell phone.

An informed life comes with a price. It takes time, effort, memory and perseverance in use of cognitive process for assimilation of information. The price also includes willingness to seek out and recognize "motive." (A driving force in all living species). I do not believe Snowden's only reason for his 'crusade' was your and my privacy and constitutional rights.

Yes I agree wholeheartedly with Bob Cesca on matter related to Meta-data and NSA monitoring.  


Now, for background on the New York Times revelation of an NSA operative via publishing Edward Snowden's "bounty." The NY Times should be much more careful. Snowden does no care about the danger of revealing US INTEL, INTEL Agents and INTEL OPs, some of use do care.


New York Times Suffers Redaction Failure, Exposes Name Of NSA Agent And Targeted Network In Uploaded PDF (via Techdirt)
It appears as if the New York Times, in its latest publication of leaked NSA documents, failed to properly redact the PDF it uploaded, exposing the name of the NSA agent who composed the presentation as well as the name of a targeted network. Cryptome…



StumbleUpon