The main thing that this new release reveals is not the scope of the data collection, but confirmation that analysts are given free reign to perform queries. Until this, there was an outside chance that the system required all database queries to be signed by a Judge prior to execution. This is not the case though; all queries are processed immediately, with essentially nothing more than a repo commit message as justification, and basically any analyst can do it.
Exactly. There were a lot of people from the government that came out in the past few months and said there are checks and balances and a lot of oversight in these processes. That clearly isn't true.
It will be interesting to go back through all of those statements with this new information/evidence on hand.
Greenwald has timed this well. He put out enough information early on to give Snowden opponents enough rope with which to hang themselves.
And if his comment further down in the thread is anything to go by then there is a lot more to come.
It's an interesting problem for the talking heads: How much will be revealed? They're caught between a rock and a hard place, if they start telling the truth they might reveal something that the leaked docs don't support, but if they tell a lie they might be found out.
This trickle strategy is working very well. The best cause of action for the people under the microscope would be to shut up and if they are compelled to talk to say the absolute minimum but to still tell the truth.
It's pretty impressive how Greenwald, Snowden et al are organizing the staggering/trickling. They're not just releasing any old info at periodic intervals. They seem to be anticipating the responses NSA/USG will give to particular leaks (e.g. analysts can't run searches, there are checks and balances) and choosing next leaks based on how they can prove those NSA/USG statements wrong.
It's like the Socratic method for public/government relations.
The goal seems not just to be exposing the magnitide of this surveillance system, but also the government's systemic disregard for public mandate in the USA right now.
>Greenwald has timed this well. He put out enough information early on to give Snowden opponents enough rope with which to hang themselves.
I have to wonder if the staggered deployment of the leak has anything to do with savvy, or more with his own need to digest what he's got as he works through it and reports as he goes.
Either way, the story has more legs than past revelations, so I'm happy for that, and I certainly would love for it to be the case that there is a degree of effective calculation behind the deployment of the info with the goal of keeping the conversation alive and neutering critics. Goodness knows that this story needs all the help it can get. It's up against not only the resources of some of the most powerful governments on the planet, but also the lacking attention spans of their populations combined with relatively disinterested media.
I'm heartened that the noise level has remained so high since the first Guardian article (in this latest series).
Q: Thanks for reporting this. I have to ask though, why is it that you are doling out this information now after the recent congressional inquiry into NSA spying and not earlier?
A: We've published almost two dozen exclusive articles about NSA spying in the last 7 weeks, in multiple different countries around the world. Is that pace not fast enough?
There are thousands upon thousands of documents and they take time to read, process, vet, and report. These are very complex matters. On top of everything else that has to be done with these articles, from explaining, debating and defending them in the media to dealing with the aftermath.
People can accuse us of many things. Not publishing enough or fast enough is hardly one of them.
That House vote was about one specific topic - bulk collection of phone records - that this newest article has nothing to do with. That House vote isn't the be all and end all: it's just one small battle in what I can assure you will be a sustained and ongoing discussion/controversy.
There is a lot more to report still. Accuracy is the number one priority. That takes time.
Devils advocate here: If in fact all of this is being collected, is it actually illegal to search without a warrant? If all of the above items are being siphoned off the internet via taps in concentrated NAPs around the USA and the world, and everything is in plaintext, this doesn't seem to be technically against the law.
