Topic: BitCoins for Edward Snowden. - page 5. (Read 30964 times)

He was basically working for the Federal Reserve, helping the CIA/NSA to obtain trade secrets, etc.  Without an alternative, anonymous currency, the options for someone in his position

It's now possible to do this:

https://wikileaks.org/freesnowden

At the bottom of the page:

Doing great financial wise, manhunt wise the blood is on your hands, you are the ones that let Mohammed give ya the terrorism scare and strip your rights away, if you are looking at someone to blame you can look in the mirror.

If you call being the target of a global manhunt by a world superpower with global reach and a vindictive streak for truth tellers great ... yeah, then he's doing "great".

i would donate.

Snowden had a 200,000$ salary, I'm sure that with Russia buying his confidential information he will be doing great.

any basement-dwelling anarchists hacker types around? (i know, we are all conformist legal eagles now ... ) but anyhoo ...

... you might like this new twist in the theatre of the absurd .gov has vomited up in the Snowden case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/07/why-a-former-nsa-chief-just-made-a-big-mistake-by-dissing-hackers/


... yeah, these are the guys responsible for establishing the State surveillance Leviathan ... trolling like hormone-charged 15yos.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/08/email-company-reportedly-used-by-edward-snowden-shuts-down-rather-than-hand-data-over-to-feds/

Lavabit, an email provider allegedly used by Snowden.  Lavabit doesn't provide info to government so it shutters the business rather than surrender 1st amendment protections.

Do you imagine that Snowden is in control of the edit?  Or even when the camera is on or where it is pointed?
Or that he has a choice of whether a picture of PRISM or his face is on the screen for the masses?
If so, than even you sir, have been duped along with all the rest of us.


He may be his generations Annie Machon (MI5 whistleblower on the Qadaffi assassination plot), if he survives so long.
http://anniemachon.ch/

Americans generally do not know any of this, mostly because of apathy.

Snowden's other option (if he wanted to out these systems due to his burden of conscience) would have been to leak the information anonymously.  What would have happened then is a massive internal manhunt to the great detriment and suffering of a vast number of his colleagues.  So taking the heat on it personally was probably less to do with his egoism than you might suggest.
I would never have done it myself.   I have far too much to lose to be revealing secrets, about anything.  And I selfishly value my trustworthyness more than any imagined potential benefit to society that might come from what he did.  Due to the the political perversity principle, it is just as likely to have the opposite of whatever effect Snowden intended.

But it can be fun to point out what is in the public domain already, and taking a fresh look at the relevant interests and how they are aligned and opposed is engaging for some strategic thinkers.
I don't have any reason for, (or even any way of) either being for or against him as a person, a criminal, or a hero, but observing the interplay of reactions has to be engaging food for analysis.

To be fair, Snowden made this all about him anyway.  In front of the camera from day 1, regular interviews and statements, flirting with various countries for asylum, etc.  Bottom line, his story quickly became way more interesting than the NSA-spies-on-people shocker.

Anyway, put your bitcoins away.  Snowden's getting plenty of Rubles for his troubles.

moving forward there will never be a time that we will have privacy from government. the age of privacy is and forever will be a thing of the past. the good news is that the internet is a two way looking glass. for the first time in history we can stare right back at them. 

Since you got that joke, here's one even funnier...
That Guardian Webpage you just browsed and linked here has all the social media "like" buttons and "share" buttons embedded on it.
You can see them on the left.

The Java script those buttons include on the page are enough to provide this tracking information through those social media sites,
So even if Guardian were not providing this browser tapping directly, the java from those "like" buttons would be doing it anyway. EVEN if you don't use them, or Facebook.
Every time you see that little thumbs up, you know you have just added your browsing data to the XKeyscore system.

Correct!

I just read that and all I can say is... holy shit!

Every email provider worth mentioning is being tapped for content.
Every IM provider worth mentioning is being tapped for content.
Every search engine worth mentioning is being tapped for content.
Every social media worth mentioning is being tapped for content.
and last but not least probably every ISP worth mentioning is being tapped for content.

So how does this XKeyscore thing work ... is it like a credit rating ... to see how close to being a terrorist any one person might be?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data


I bet it is built on top of linux ...

You might be surprised how little Americans know about what the government does.
Do not underestimate our capacity to ignore even what might seem obvious.

Your assessment of the media is also interesting, but consider the media coverage in the Snowden case.
It focuses 99% on the personage of Snowden.  Almost zero coverage about what was revealed.
This method is not new, it is repeated with each whistleblower.
The effect is to maintain the ignorance about what is revealed, and focus entirely on the intrigue of the manhunt.  It becomes an adventure and human interest story rather than anything that can affect policy or government.

It was the same with Bradley Manning.  Americans know a lot more about his sexual issues than they do about anything that he revealed.

Americans are instructed to be afraid of our "enemies".

Best coverage on Snowden is http://www.theguardian.co.uk

They have covered both Assange/Wikileaks and Snowden more than most sources.

Indeed, I saw an other stating the same thing

Info from his Russian lawyer: Temporary asylum in Russia
Russia Today saw him leaving the airport

Breaking news on BBC, no more details yet

Source? I can't find anything