phryk: > I have to admit, I find that rather amusing. I wonder if this is > actually true and if it might change Obamas opinion on the surveillance > machine. And if it does, how will he try to hide the obvious hypocrisy?
I used to think there was a possibility that surveillance would capture our politicians through blackmail/etc. After seeing more and more of these releases, I am becoming convinced that this *already happened*. If they didn't capture Obama in this 2004 operation, capturing him later wouldn't be terribly difficult. NSA: "You're the first black US President, and you want to *dismantle* the domestic surveillance operation that might prevent an assassination attempt on you or your family by some moron redneck lunatic? Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to you after that..." I sure can understand his hesitance in the face of such a threat. I don't envy him, that's for sure :/. > Actually I have to say that I'm beginning to see the whole phenomenon > developing around Snowdens leaks with a good dose of gallows humor. > > It's kind of slapstick-y that every time someone of the US government > tries to justify all the surveillance, there seem to be three new > stories popping up that elaborate on all the stuff they actually do; > some of which even directly contradicts what those apologists claim. I have noticed this pattern too. I think Snowden and his handlers at the Guardian have a far more sophisticated PR and release timing strategy than anyone has given them credit for (I'm referring to various rumblings about their release of material at the end of the week, questioning the value of the release of intel on US hacking, etc). If there is to be a journalistic award for this work, it should not be for any one story. The whole arc is magnificently directed. -- Mike Perry
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
