TBH, that was probably the worst move on Snowden's part. If for instance he wanted to get out of "The Great Game", he should of conceded his position on the board. Now he's potentially handed himself as a pawn controlled by Russians, he's definitely not getting off the board easily.
This and That Security Contractor Investigated It's worth noting that USIS, the private contractor that vetted Edward Snowden for security clearance, is presently under investigation: Patrick McFarland, the inspector general at the Office of Personnel Management, said during a Senate hearing that the contractor USIS is being investigated and that the company performed a background investigation of Edward Snowden. McFarland also told lawmakers that there may have been problems with the way the background check of Snowden was done, but McFarland and one of his assistants declined to say after the hearing what triggered the decision to investigate USIS and whether it involved the company's check of Snowden. "To answer that question would require me to talk about an ongoing investigation. That's against our policy," Michelle Schmitz, assistant inspector general for investigations, told reporters after the hearing. "We are not going to make any comment at all on the investigation of USIS." USIS, which is based in Falls Church, Va., did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said she and her staff have been told that the inquiry is a criminal investigation related "to USIS' systemic failure to adequately conduct investigations under its contract" with the Office of Personnel Management. (Lardner) In truth, I believe it will eventually emerge that Snowden is not psychologically fit, that his clearance should never have been granted. Unfortunately, when it comes to this particular scandal, there are a number of ways in which the likely truth is annoyingly convenient. • • • Speaking of Convenience When it comes to certain politically charged events and situatons in the world, it is helpful if one reviews their politics before diving in. With the Snowden leak, there are certain points that get lost in the noisy marketplace. Steve Benen makes the point, sort of: It makes for unsatisfying punditry, but I'll confess to having mixed feelings about Edward Snowden. I find some of the criticism of him from the Washington establishment to be crude and condescending, but I'm also unmoved by characterizations of him as a "whistleblower." Snowden has spirited defenders and critics, each of which have compelling arguments, though I don't find myself in either camp, which is probably why I haven't written much about his predicament. For Benen, an MSNBC producer on Rachel Maddow's team, part of what seems problematic is that Snowden's logic doesn't appear to be completely resolved: As Snowden apparently sees it -- I say "apparently" because it was not something he elaborated on, beyond the above quote -- the United States should not conduct international surveillance on foreign countries we are not currently at war with. And since the United States does engage in such espionage, he feels justified in exposing what he sees as wrongdoing. What's disappointing is that I get the impression Snowden has given these issues a fair amount of thought, and this rationale for his leaks -- or at least some of them -- doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, the U.S. Congress hasn't declared war on Iran, but I think most fair-minded people would agree that surveillance of and intelligence gathering in Iran is a sensible thing to do. (It might even help prevent a war.) The U.S. Congress hasn't declared war on Syria, either, but the U.S. government has an interest in understanding developments inside that country, too. Indeed, our Congress, even at the height of the Cold War, never declared war on the Soviet Union. Was surveillance of Russia necessarily wrong and in need of sunlight? Though he didn't specify, in context, Snowden probably intended to focus on countries friendly with the United States, which are nevertheless subject to surveillance. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he doesn't oppose intelligence gathering in countries like Iran and Syria, the argument is still unpersuasive -- international espionage around the globe has been a norm for generations. It's safe to say our allies conduct intelligence gathering in the U.S., just as we do the same in their countries. It's not considered scandalous by much of anyone. And that touches on another aspect. As Benen suggests, it is hard to figure just what one thinks of Edward Snowden. As political scandals go, this one ought to be entertaining in a liberal partisan context, which is almost entirely reserved to the Democratic side of the aisle. Of course, that is also what makes it so problematic. Like Benen, I am unsure how I see Snowden. Of course, the inevitable question arises, as both Mr. Benen and I fall into the category of liberal supporters of the Democratic Party. This is our president: What would we think if this happened under Bush? And that in itself is a difficult question. Part of what sets the stage for this scene of our eternal matinée is watching the peripheral players scramble to resolve their positions. To wit, I find it hard to believe that Rep. Sensenbrenner, one of the primary authors of the Patriot Act, did not know what was in the bill; and, in truth, it seems problematic to complain that one was never briefed on the PRISM program when one skipped the briefings. Furthermore, given that it is the Democrats who annoyed me by buckling during the FISA reauthorization? Well, that, too, is part of how the issue is framed. What we know and what we believe are, obviously, different things of distinct natures. Edward Snowden provided documentation of something we already "knew" insofar as, while I did not have such proof that domestic espionage was occurring, no, really, I'm not surprised. While ranting to myself last night, I invoked the notion of keystroke observation, which we all know is possible but is a curious notion since the amount of data from mass keystroke surveillance would render such a program useless. But while I was thinking about that, I recalled a news discussion I heard back in the nineties about whether or not Microsoft was going to include a certain key in the OS that would allow law enforcement easy access to a computer, the idea being that with probable cause and a warrant, they could observe illegal activities as they were typed into a computer. Yet our culture is awash in keystroke observation. ATM skimmer hardware records and stores keystrokes among their captured data; hackers use forms of keystroke observation to steal passwords. The idea that the government can watch me type out an email to a friend, using an old Emma Goldman quote, and then bust down my door before I can hit send? Well, you know, as I noted previously, in all these years they've never come for me. My conservative neighbors who are now suddenly afraid of the government's awesome surveillance power are late to the game. Welcome, of course, but they don't need to put on pretentious airs when they walk in. Those of us on the left side of the aisle? We're accustomed to it. And we're still free. Strangely, in the War Against Terrorism, people have repeatedly expressed shock and outrage at expanding law enforcement power, but it never rings true. Remember when people argued over whether the government should be able to collect your library records? It was early in TWAT, but we went through that discussion. And, yes, it was annoying because the basic problem was that most of the people complaining were upset because they were now equal to their neighbors. That is, when the federal government was trying to subpoena library checkout records to bust potheads in Ohio, these complainers come lately were just fine with it. And that was the nature of the War Against Drugs; many in the empowerment majority were just fine with this behavior because it only hurt "them", the nonwhite, the leftists, the barbarians. All of this behavior was cleared by courts during the WAD, and it had significant majority support. When the public trust deployed "child soldiers" to the WAD, or gunned down teenagers for being the wrong color, the empowerment majority rushed to its defense. And the shocking Tulia debacle reminds that a single police officer, member of the empowerment majority (e.g., white, nominally Christian, male) with a history of corruption and explicit racism can provide no evidence and cause the arrest and conviction of forty-six people; thirty-nine were black, but the stiffest sentence handed out was to a white man who (gasp!) had married a black woman. Literally dozens of Tulia's children were orphaned for several years. Things can get much worse. And it's all been signed, stamped, and approved by the courts and empowered establishments. True, the Tulia defendants have been pardoned or seen their convictions overturned, but it never should have come to that in the first place. It is easy enough to see, with hindsight, that we blew our WAD. Now, as we are neck deep in TWAT, one wonders what, exactly, we are eating; it is certainly not manna from heaven, and Americans do not have a taste for crow. Given the tale of our American history, it is hard to see what vital service Snowden has done that would qualify him as a whistleblower. Perhaps the mere difference between the "knowledge" of deep faith and the empirical knowledge of recorded data is that important to some, but much like putting together a puzzle, sometimes you know what piece fits the gap because it is the only one with the right shape. Snowden has given us that piece, but does that make him a whistleblower? Benen's consideration of the Booz Allen leaker's logic is certainly a valid consideration, but he would serve his point better to include some discussion of why one is "unmoved by characterizations of him as a 'whistleblower'". The bottom line is that if we get our hands on him, he's going to prison, and probably for life. That much is certain, but the larger question is why. Is he a whistleblower, or just a petulant whore for attention? At this point, I can only answer the question at some time still to come, when certain parts of the historical record are settled. This does not mean one need be indifferent toward Snowden's fate; future history will seek benchmarks and bellwethers in the odd terrain of this leg in our American journey. ____________________ Notes: Lardner, Richard. "Firm that checked NSA leaker being probed". Associated Press. June 20, 2013. Hosted.AP.org. June 23, 2013. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_SURVEILLANCE_ACCESS_TO_SECRETS Benen, Steve. "The nature of international espionage and surveillance". The Maddow Blog. June 17, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. June 23, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...e-of-international-espionage-and-surveillance Serwer, Adam. "Patriot Act architect cries foul on NSA program, but skipped briefings". MSNBC. June 14, 2013. TV.MSNBC.com. June 23, 2013. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/14/sens...riefed-on-nsa-programs-skipped-the-briefings/
A cell phone number has no relevance for where a call is made, and if it is to another cell phone, that number is irrelevant to where it is received. And that is the whole point. Calls made within and outside of the USA. I suppose that is one of the security issues they are fretting about. Phones purchased (ya know assigned a number) within the usa and used outside its borders. A defense would like that info I suppose also (as the link aludes to) to PROVE origin of call. NSA says it was outside the borders, but cannot prove it because they didnt keep tower/satellite bounce info?
Snowdens major points were about the spying on US citizens without probable cause. Quote from Snowden interview (which seems lost to Benen): Snowden:"Now increasingly we see that it's happening domestically and to do that they, the NSA specifically, targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them in its system and it filters them and it analyses them and it measures them and it stores them for periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient, and most valuable way to achieve these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government or someone they suspect of terrorism, they're collecting you're communications to do so." Snowden: "Because even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. And the storage capability of these systems increases every year consistently by orders of magnitude to where it's getting to the point where you don't have to have done anything wrong. You simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call. And then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis to sort to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer." http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...ntire-interview-with-the-man-who-leaked-prism His motivation was he saw the potential to destroy lives under the guise of terrorists are hiding everywhere. A system that is growing without thoughts as to end result. Be careful which psychological profile you want empowered to sort through your email/voice chats/pics/videos. I would prefer someone who was willing to take it to the press (open) rather than the bible thumping devil is real psychology (also protected by the first ammendment) that is well know to be relevant in the military. Sorry but Brenen's thoughts are misdirected. How in the world do so many people NOT say anything about spying on Americans? Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who had classified knowledge of the program as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were unable to speak of it when they warned in a Dec. 27, 2012, floor debate that the FISA Amendments Act had what both of them called a “back-door search loophole” for the content of innocent Americans who were swept up in a search for someone else.
Nope, you STILL don't get it. It has nothing to do with the phone device at all. Rather, it has *everything* to do with the call switching network. The network stores (and forwards) everything relating to the call including the calling (originating) AREA (the precise cell tower is irrelevant and will even change during the call if the caller is traveling) and the called (destination) AREA. Bottom line is you know nothing at all about the process and the data sent along with each call. It's readily available to the NSA and anyone else with the proper equipment even when the content (voice or data) of the call is ignored.
OK. I see you did not read the link I posted. And you were the one yapping on about phone numbers and country codes. QUOTE FROM the LINKED ARTICLE: On Wednesday, federal prosecutors filed a motion saying they cannot respond to Brown's request because the federal government does not have the data the suspect seeks — cell site location information, or CSLI. The leaked court order which inspired the request included was unclear on which metadata phone companies turn over. The assertion in the motion that "at the outset, the government does not possess the CSLI data," is intriguing, as it clearly refutes the notion that the NSA obtains location data as part of its routine records acquisition from telephone companies. END of SNIPPET If NSA does not have that data (and I believe they DO have it) then their whole case of data dumping phones being important to the war on terrorism is BS. Any defense lawyer is going to want proof of location. And I already alluded to the potential issue of US bought phone shipments to other countries to avoid NSA. And it brings up an unforeseen issue. If they do have it, should an innocent man goes to prison for a murder he didnt commit? Note: you will have to READ the link to understand the question.
Well he is apparently on his way to Ecuador. By going to Cuba after Russia, and then apparently onto Ecuador. Presumably after they grant him asylum. So Russia and Cuba. With all of this super secret information on his person. Talk about dangling a chocolate cake in front of a fat person in a diet camp. I suppose this will make the inevitable book deal that much more juicy. It would add flesh to this story. The escape into the night to Russia, the flight to Cuba.. It's all very exciting, isn't it? All that needs to happen now is his girlfriend meeting him off the plane in Ecuador and the hero's story will be complete.
Did the USA officials really think that cancelling his passport would stop him travelling? I hope he's getting it stamped properly, otherwise he could get into trouble. As for the girlfriend, he has no doubt met a beautiful mysterious woman while buying a cup of coffee at the airport. That kind of thing is always happening in Russia.
Didn't take long.. Well the doo doo is about to hit the fan. Well more than it already has. The latest in the Snowden Saga: Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who leaked information on the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, says he sought the job with Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence on the agency's data collection networks. In a June 12 interview with the South China Morning Post published Monday, Snowden, who previously worked as a CIA technician, said he took the position with the intention of collecting information on the NSA. “My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he said. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.” Reading the South China Post article, this does not paint a rosy picture of a man who attempted to portray himself as the bringer of truth - when you consider he lied through his teeth to get the job and his reasons for wanting the job at the NSA in the first place. And yes, he is still in Russia.
Heads, We Lose; Tails, We Get a Consolation Prize There are certain sections of your post I will pass on for now, as new information unsettles, for instance, the question of his motivation. However, as to spying without probable cause, that's sort of where I'm flipping a coin. Spying without probable cause is a longtime American behavior; the only question here is one of scale. While I am hardly a tech geek by any measure, anyone who remotely keeps up with the march of technology should not be surprised, shocked, or otherwise outraged over the scale. Furthermore, part of what seems to be going on here is a traditional empowerment majority backlash. There are a number of factors here, but it is something we see in various forms from time to time. When it was unwarranted invasive spying on communists and civil rights activists, the empowerment majority was just fine with that. When it was the drug war, the empowerment majority was just fine with that. Indeed, the old Microsoft issue I referred to was defended in the public discussion according to the drug war and associated violence. The general principle of this intrusion has long been endorsed by the empowerment majority°. Perhaps you have noted some occasion in the past where I remind that equality is a step up for the vast majority of people, and a step down for the priviliged few. This is an aspect of that principle. Our society tends to scorn "victims" of intrusive government who turn out to be guilty of something that really bothers us. To wit, I think it's stupid that the government can seize your laptop and search its contents when re-entering through CBP. To the other, I heard about that case because they busted a child pornographer who was stupid enough to leave the original file names intact, and if there is one thing that will make a law enforcement official check a certain file, it's the suggestion that a four year-old is on video learning how to satisfy daddy. I mean, come on. Would a drug dealer really keep his business list with real names and contact info, in unencrypted files called "cocaine_buyers" and "heroin_suppliers"? My conundrum? I don't like CBP; I already know they're corrupt. Sometimes it seems like their job is to redefine the law; when they remand someone under force of law for a second interview, they are not detaining that person; when they confiscate the personal items of a person in order to examine the contents, they are not searching anything. I mean, sure, good on them, they busted a bad guy who was also a complete idiot. But, really? Confiscate your electronics merely because you've been, say, to London? Really? The thing is that many people are fine with it until it's their turn, enough so that this manifests as the attitude of the empowerment majority. What's really going on here isn't entirely about criminal suspicion, but largely about embarrassing behavior. We on the left, or in the pot subculture, or whatever else might put us on the empowerment majority's radar—I don't suffer skin color suspicion, for instance—have continued to use technology to arrange buys, or send perverted emails to lovers—or have long-distance phone sex when they're away—and all the socially embarrassing or legally dangerous stuff. And we all know that whether it's sex or real estate or the domestic staff, or whatever, the empowerment majority is just as loaded with sin as the rest of society; indeed, in some things maybe even more so because they have traditionally enjoyed certain protection from automatic suspicion. Before this, the empowerment majority had to be on the lookout for weak elements in their circles of sin. Mark Foley and Ted Haggard were, to use the term loosely, "betrayed". Now it's not a matter of betrayal; seemingly because of the NSA scandal, many are reacting on some neurotic ego/superego (paleo/neo) level to the idea that all that information is suddenly out there in the aether, with the intention that someone is going to sniff through the laundry. The idea of this degree of intrusion is nothing new. It is unbelievable that people are somehow surprised. The issue at stake seems to be one of scale; people who once were comfortable with such intrusion against various "suspicious" people now find themselves swimming in the same pool. Hopefully, they'll get over it; I know many in my subcultures have. A few weeks before this story broke, I was talking with a friend I hadn't heard from in a while. We were in a gloomy mood, brought together by the early passing of a mutual close friend. As we ranted about politics, he used a couple of words in proximity that prompted me to jokingly say hello to the NSA and then remind as a counterpoint that there are some people you don't want to take down because the next guy up will be coming for you with unimaginable force. It is an exercise in weirdness to try to imagine a perspective in which I don't believe that every word I type at Sciforums, every text message, every email, every phone conversation, is already subject to surveillance and capture. I get the whole thing about it being wrong. But there is nothing new about it taking place, except, perhaps, that now all the "good, decent folk" who "don't have anything to hide" are subject to the same disrespect. But more than anything, this is a scandalous issue that needs time to play out. The atmosphere in the arena of public discourse is toxically polluted, viciously precipitate, and gusty to chaos. To wit, it is hard to know what to think when part of the scandal is that the guy who authored the law permitting this sort of conduct had no idea the government was doing this, though perhaps his ignorance is because he skipped the briefings where it was discussed. Furthermore, the political arguments trying to make Obama in to the goddamn Devil only further obscure the real issues. While the president is certanly no Obamassiah, his great grace in history will depend on outcomes after his presidency is finished. Constitutionally, his options are limited, and his primary duty in executing the office of the presidency is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Considering his early Guantanamo defeat, the way his Justice Department maneuvered after a DoMA defeat, and other hopeful clues, it is possible that, while we cannot say everything is going to plan, he is laying the groundwork for middle- and long-term accomplishment of certain goals. This, of course, is an outcome we can only find twenty years down the line, so it doesn't really help much. The important thing, then, for me, is that we are now having this discussion at all. And if it sticks—if PRISM is what it took to wake people up, since none of the many previous signs along this road have gotten people's attention—then perhaps we can find some way out of this mess, not as a political institution or presidential administration, but as a society. Just how evil this president actually is will resolve over time; I believe history will find him to be a reasonably effective president according to the circumstances of his time. But I could be wrong. It could be he really is just an evil bastard. Coming back to Snowden, though, I'm still not certain what aspect of his revelation would make him a whistleblower. As we learn more about his conduct, it might resolve that he's just an asshole with a martyr complex seeking his fame in history. And as we learn more about these domestic espionage programs, it might well be that the empowerment majority decides to shrug, roll over, and go back to sleep. Well, right. It's just strange to see that advice still being given, as it makes me wonder who, aside from the youngest generation just logging onto the internet, needs to be told. May Godwin forgive me. They are just doing their jobs. Look, it doesn't make it right. But as a psychological process, well, it should be easy enough to see. Drowning in a soup of information, pushed along by the traditional prevailing winds of the empowered majority. The most delicate lines will blur most easily. I am uncertain whether this strengthens or weakens Snowden's case as a whistleblower. ____________________ Notes: ° empowerment majority — A term I have used many times before, but arises in heavy rotation here; I might as well define it. The empowerment majority is different from the statistical majority. Perhaps one of the easiest explanations of the empowerment majority in function is to look at the American War of the Sexes. Our society, statistically, is female majority. A superficial extrapolation would suggest that women would occupy a proportionate—e.g. majority—of public representation leadership, whether in political office or the private sector. Such a superficial notion, of course, is irrelevant compared to reality. Look at our public representation; even the fundamental outlook of our public policy is masculine. In an allegedly democratic society, a statisical minority appears to be the empowerment majority. To the other, it is not as simple as male/female, white/nonwhite. In American politics, there are many occasions when it would seem one might be suggesting political conservatism is the empowerment majority, since even "progressives" often flinch at the prospect of progress. It would be unfair to saddle conservatives alone with that burden; the empowerment majority often defines itself negatively, and is very much a dynamic body especially during transitional periods such as the United States has been enduring for over a decade. But the empowerment majority essentially has the biggest vote at the public policy table, like a majority shareholder in a board vote; it is the most influential, regardless of whether it constitutes a proper statistical majority.
He had good precedent on that one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
So? Once again, we have this weird discordance - he's betraying us, so we shouldn't believe the bad stuff he asserts/ he's just telling us what we already knew anyway, no big deal. He's apparently being charged with espionage - that sort of implies that some of what he has delivered to somebody is both accurate and otherwise unknown to that recipient. The OP is about NSA data mining of phone records - and we still don't know what the NSA has actually been up to. As fascinating as Snowdon's girlfriend, martyr complex, Hollywood prospects, or relations with the Kardashians might be, I'm more interested in his claims along those lines.
I never said that he should not be believed. I just think that he is in this for himself. He wants his minutes of fame. And because of that, as you say, the actual message has gotten lost. But again though, how can people not have known the Government was doing this? There is a joke here amongst many of my friends, and it is something we like to do to some when talking on the phone, and that is to say certain key words repeatedly. Because we know that such words are picked up. That aside though, I would imagine it was part of their normal operational procedures when doing a sweep, to pick everything up and sift through it. Perhaps it is as you say, ignorance plays a great part on that. But really? It defies logic that people can be so shocked about all of this. This absolute shock about all of this when it first came out was to say 'well duh!'. Or is the anger about the fact that Americans are getting caught in the sweeps instead of just foreigners or other countries? I suppose one day they will look at his role in all of this and especially his motives. He lied to go and spy on a spying agency so he could disclose their spying tactics. At the moment the spectacle continues. And what a spectacle it is..
You've heard this before but I am saying it again. Your posts are too long. That aside I will try to respond. It was misdirected then as it is now. Whats that quote about forgetting history being doomed to repeat it. The difference between CBP and this is, I know when I leave and re-enter the country I can be searched. I will be fully aware of the process unlike when I hit send, I do not know and cannot find out if my data is being searched and/or filed away and/or passed along to other agencies; just in case. But I have included a photo that may place doubt into what I know/dont know. I have worked for the state and am fully aware of incidents where people have been unjustly added to a 'list'. And no kidding, when it was finally revealed, it was someone with power, seeking revenge for high school antics or a long past relationship, or being buddies with someone in that past relationship. Those are multiple cases in a small circle of approx 15K, not 1 million people working with NSA (as one report since Snowden claims). I think plenty of people in this forum know of a prick cop seeking revenge on an innocent/relatively harmless person. Which is why I ask which psychological profile is fitting to gather this kind of data. I dont put a lot of weight behind 'profiling'. It only works on extremes, not for generalization of the majority. As far as Snowden being a maytr/whistleblower. He is a buddhist who went to work for a company that must often leave you with the feeling you need to shower after just 'doing my job'. The number of people trying to find some self-gratification in regards to Snowdens motivation is just more mass hysteria. Could it be simply he saw just how invasive it is; the potential for harm; the repression of free thought and sharing of ideas; the potential for abuse? Photo taken July 31, 2009. This is surveilance of the Hell's Angels motorcycle group in MN. A google search will provide background. The ONLY reason I got a shot of this was because there was an irritating helicopter in a place it did not belong. What I do know is the copter was at LEAST 5 miles from its target. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! CBP - Dept Homeland Security. It was within the 100 miles of the Border. There are Canadian Hell's Angels who might have crossed over at portage or international falls. It is also possible there were US citizens who had left the east coast and wandered across into canada before going back into the US for this gathering. And all went well at sturgis. No terrorist attacks in S.D. 2009. But I have no idea what it cost the US taxpayers that week to monitor bikers on a run. Speaking of scale anyways.
The sheer mass of information makes it unwieldy, but a little filtering would make it easy to find just enough information, so that you have a hold on many people. So, a few records of visits to dodgy websites, a few uses of the 'N' word, perhaps a phone call to a known drug dealers number, or a prostitute, or a gangster, and you have enough dirt for blackmail. Going back in time a few years, pre-internet, I bet JFK would have entries in all those boxes, or their equivalents. You wouldn't need rooms full of hard drives. A few Gigabytes would suffice.
As I recall, J.E. Hoover would have been the one to best fit what you have in mind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I feel a bit sorry for the Tech's left behind after Snowden's act, they'll all likely end up being snooped on constantly, probably end up with ankle bracelets similar to those used during house arrest to not just track their position but snoop any radio telecommunications within range of them. (even picking up microphone/speakers and what they pick up) It might well get to the point were a jail break will have to be arranged to save the tech's from their now extremely miserable job positions.
Edgar Hoover They would have needed a separate hard drive. He would have never been off the porn sites.
