IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New On salary

Snowden's a demonstrated liar (his "nearly $200k" salary and other things).


I actually less inclined to believe Booz Allen in this regard. They're getting a lot of heat for excessive costs in Government.

So, let's back up a second. Booz Allen claims that Snowden's rate is $112K. No mention of overtime or any other perks.

Could I believe Booz Allen was charging the government $200k for Snowden's services? Yep, that I can believe.


Flip-side of the coin - the $200K references were about Snowden's comfortable lifestyle. Now we find out Snowden was working a 3 month contract. (Of course, those contracts can and have been extended before)
New It's part of the piece for me.
Do you believe he could wiretap the President if he simply had his e-mail address?

http://www.dailymail...p--president.html

On his salary, he told Greenwald - http://www.theguardi...les-whistleblower

Question:

User avatar for D. Aram Mushegian II
D. Aram Mushegian II
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

Answer:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.


Maybe that's the way it happened, but I can't imagine a conversation with the press that would go that way - "Tell me, how much did you make in your best-paid year?" ?!?

He also said in that Greenwald Q&A:

Question:

User avatar for Mathius1
Mathius1
17 June 2013 2:54pm
Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? Id my data protected by standard encryption?

Answer:

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.


Rather categorical, given what's been reported about RSA, and the fact that US regulations have not restricted the export some commonly-used types of encryption for decades. (See a previous thread here.)

He exaggerated his importance and capabilities. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about in several cases. Someone in that position who wants to be seen as credible as a whistleblower has to be careful not to embellish the truth or his understanding of the truth. He wasn't.

My $0.02. YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Personally, I don't care.. if he fails to live up to your
(or my) imaginations of a fully-conscious, utterly circumspect Renaissance Man. (There seem not to be any DaVincis around with whom to compare.)
Is he also to be ridiculed because he did-Not: scheme meticulously to create some secret rat-hole-with Persian rugs, before acting? Fact is: we. do. not. know. the full-extent of his pilfered data/no matter what Anyone (esp. NSA talking heads) might speculate--nor can we be sure that NSA actually Knows [the negative]: that which {they Hope!} he did not filch.
I see all of their talking-heads scurryinyFar-Around that interesting topic..
(And along with All of US: I cannot comprehend whether BHO Likes! the burgeoning Securitat Staat--is thus, a closet-Control Freak/Who Knew?)

So, as in Pyramus and Thisbe: There he stands, all illegible; perpetual fodder next for every cockamamie assignment of scurrilous-or-frivolous "motivations"--like Lee Harvey O, Adam Lanza and a passel of other people we all imagine we can psychoanalyze, and about whom we know less than ..about neutrinos, to date.

What is evident, thus far: is that he DID 'risk everything' in the sense that all do comprehend (if they try): obviously sans even a Bolt Hole
(we have no idea how much of his gross income he ever saved--A Lot? would be inconsistent with his suggested 'living style', I wot) etc.
IMΣE there are damn-few amongst our comfortable/pampered selves who would even entertain fantasies of such a Principled Action--no more likely to be about 'future remuneration' and other scurrilous suppositions--than any other motivation everyone imagines self capable of assigning.
The vox-pop will do as it Does: usually denigrate and pontificate, but.. THIS.. TIME.. I have a small sense that The Mob Will Get It (perhaps a majority already have?)

I have read-for-comprehension your rebuttals to the Goodness?/Relevance!/Importance of this event.
As always these are in Logical-format, but thus far, are sans the huge-Scale/the many clear consequences already unfolding: you seem still.. naive about the fishbowl in which we swim, thus your [-] conclusions I must deem unReasonable. At this stage of 'revelations'.

Sending him back for Murican justice, as Rand juxtaposed: IS precisely tantamount to "sending back Russkie defectors for Soviet justice".
(Just one of the aspects of your logic-sans-Scale arguments. You may believe that the US is not sufficiently-broken for travesty to trump Justice):
I believe the converse. More reluctantly than you imagine.

Finally on the Goodness/Badness! polarity matters, re this Event: I do not deem that you are Wrong and I am Right, as in purest digital think.
Mainly I believe that we both lack knowledge of many details/aspects--guaranteed by the extant-Press and by daily immersion in the omnipresent language-murder of our Tribe
(especially over that last 150 years or so.)
Somewhat-believable material.. may surface ... sufficiently un-spun as to corroborate either of our present positions.

But for right now..


Ed: oTyp
Expand Edited by Ashton Dec. 27, 2013, 05:32:00 PM EST
New Well said. Thanks.
New Okay...I missed that article
and I see exactly where you're coming from.
     more on flogging Snowden's dead horse - (boxley) - (24)
         Old news. - (Another Scott) - (22)
             Baby-with-bathwater; out-throw? - (Ashton) - (16)
                 Don't let me get to you. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                     Nevertheless we are puzzled - (rcareaga) - (14)
                         Re: Nevertheless we are puzzled - (Another Scott)
                         FWIW re: "facing justice" - (drook) - (10)
                             Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                 Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                     Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                             Devil's advocate. - (Another Scott)
                                 See da box on their charter - (drook) - (3)
                                     If they're within their charter, then it's not whistleblowin - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         I very much doubt his ability - (jake123) - (1)
                                             Heh.. most astute, that last! (wheels-within-wheels churn..) -NT - (Ashton)
                                 Re: FWIW re: "facing justice" - (Ashton)
                         what is that 1/2 crap? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                             rofl. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
             On salary - (S1mon_Jester) - (4)
                 It's part of the piece for me. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                     Personally, I don't care.. if he fails to live up to your - (Ashton) - (1)
                         Well said. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     Okay...I missed that article - (S1mon_Jester)
         WaPo interview w/Snowden 12/23/13 - (rcareaga)

Ahead one third!
179 ms