doctorow at May 27th, 2014 09:00 — #1
cocomaan at May 27th, 2014 09:03 — #2
I wonder about quantity. The ACLU famously said the no fly list was a million people long.
foolishowl at May 27th, 2014 09:31 — #3
I hope we can come up with a special decoration for the avatars of BB users who are on the list.
Assuming we're not all on the list.
brian_carnell at May 27th, 2014 09:34 — #4
Is this actually accurate?
This seems to be based off of an interview that Greenwald gave to The Sunday Time of London. The Washington Times and other right wing sites are citing this paragraph as meaning that Greenwald has a list of names he's going to publish, but that's a huge stretch from what he actually says:
“One of the big questions when is comes to domestic spying is, ‘Who have
been the NSA’s specific targets?’ Are they political critics and
dissidents and activists? Are they genuinely people we’d regard as
terrorists? What are the metrics and calculations that go into choosing
those targets and what is done with the surveillance that is conducted?
Those are the kinds of questions that I want to still answer,” Mr.
Greenwald told The Sunday Times of London.
I'm not sure how you go from the above to "I've got a list here of names that I'm going to publish."
Unfortunately, the original article is behind a paywall.
tekna2007 at May 27th, 2014 11:06 — #5
Yeah, for real. The list might be 360 million names long, because the Snowden files have made the point over and over that it really is dragnet surveillance, that their policy really is "collect it all".
Although maybe you meant BB readers in particular, since we're not exactly known for toeing the line around here, and we're a very short hop away from association with world-famous free thinkers.
earnestinebrown at May 27th, 2014 11:12 — #6
It would be nice if we had a functioning judicial system so prosecutions of the guilty could happen. This country has fallen over.
penny_channing at May 27th, 2014 11:32 — #7
So this is the pre-announcement, which will be followed by the announcement, and then the publication. Right?
wrecksdart at May 27th, 2014 11:54 — #8
I won't claim to know how the WT leans, but It's worth noting that the article points out the [certainly false] document number again:
...during his download and theft of 1.7 million documents...
daneel at May 27th, 2014 12:20 — #9
samsam at May 27th, 2014 12:20 — #10
Why are we linking to the Washington Times? Is there no respectable news organization that is carrying this information? If not, why not? And why doesn't the Intercept's blog carry it?
@doctorow If your only source on an NSA/Snowden/Greenwald article is The Washington Times, perhaps you should question whether that's a valid source?
billstewart at May 27th, 2014 12:43 — #11
I've called my Congressmember. She's called Obama. He's called Angela Merkel. So that's three hops from a target, which means I could be on the list too.
(Also, given recent revelations by Peter Watts as reported in BoingBoing, I'm a serial right-turn-on-red offender, which Homeland Security cares about even though it's been decriminalized here in California.)
lemoutan at May 27th, 2014 12:44 — #12
There may be a post-announcement before the actual publication.
brian_carnell at May 27th, 2014 12:48 — #13
The Washington Times is the paper owned by The Moonies. It's the sort of newspaper where until 2008 whenever they'd run a news story about gay marriage they'd add scare quotes around marriage, as in: gay "marriage".
brian_carnell at May 27th, 2014 12:52 — #14
Yeah..this seems more likely to be a right wing smear against Greenwald than a legit story.
By switching the story from Greenwald wanting to explore more how NSA chooses its targets to one where Greenwald wants to publish names of those under surveillance, they can write hit pieces about how he's helping suspected terrorists, etc.
backtoyoujim at May 27th, 2014 13:01 — #15
This is a really weird book tour. Maybe Greenwald will ask you to sign his list if you are on it while you are getting your copy of his book signed.
I can only hope there are AAA celebrities rushing to their publicists demanding to GET ME ON THAT LIST!
legion at May 27th, 2014 13:59 — #16
So, what's the over-under on number of members of Congress appearing on this list?
rocketpj at May 27th, 2014 14:07 — #17
All of them. What will they do about it? Bluster and fuss until the media cycle expires, then go back to pleasing their donors. They don't give a crap, they are immune from any actual bad stuff happening to them, like criminal charges. Worst case for them is losing an election, getting a 1200% pay raise and coming back as a lobbyist to keep the whole circus moving.
krishnamurder at May 27th, 2014 18:12 — #18
Agreed. I did a google to see if I could find anything more trustworthy, got Russia Today (hit and miss) and Real Clear Politics blog (nope). Everything else seems to link to those or the Washington Times, and it all seems to originate with the UK's Sunday Times. So it may be true, it may be bullshit, there's no way of knowing. I might note that nowhere have I seen a quote by Greenwald saying anything about releasing a list of names. But we all know Cory gets a little ahead of himself sometimes...
boundegar at May 27th, 2014 19:26 — #19
The Times is a right-wing rag, owned by the Unification Church. Yes, really.
doctorow at June 1st, 2014 09:00 — #20
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.