What If Ed Snowden Isn't Who He Says He Is: An Opinion

     The following post is composed of my opinions.  My opinions may be right, wrong, or somewhere in-between, but they are my opinions.  F.Y.I., I am not a dem lib and I have not been for quite some time now. 


     I think Ed Snowden is who he says he is.  I do not believe that he is an operative working for the C.I.A.  I do believe that he exists.  Yes, people can and do change their viewpoints on a variety of issues and sometimes a bit dramatically throughout the years.  That Ed Snowden was against leaking stuff a couple of years ago [according to information given to Ars Technica by folks who saved their typed conversations with Ed Snowden] really doesn't bother me in the least.  Furthermore, there is a real danger in labeling someone as having narcissistic-like tendencies sight unseen, especially when this label is based on media reports and opinions of various people who did not professionally evaluate Ed Snowden.  In short, I do not believe that there is evidence for that particular claim.  I don't think he exposed the leaks because he wanted to be in the spotlight.  I think Ed Snowden's motives lie within the realm of realizing that what is happening within the N.S.A. is incorrect.  

     I believe there is some amount of misinformation being fed to us-- intentionally or otherwise-- by the media.  One example is the reports I read at first did not admit that Ed Snowden could stay in the transit area of the Russian airport without a three day visa.  The initial reports admitted that he did not have a three day visa but not that he would only need such a document in order to leave the transit area of the airport.  Another example is the idea that both China and Russia have harvested [interviewed] Ed Snowden in hopes of gaining information from him or offering him work as their spy or something like that.  I don't believe that has happened.

I cannot understand:
1.  why the N.S.A. cannot locate Ed Snowden.
2.  why Congress isn't asking the N.S.A. some very pointed questions about exactly how it is that Ed Snowden was able to download some heavy duty stuff onto a thumb-drive.  All in a day's work, is it?
3.  why Obama and other politicos think that China; and now Russia, should just willingly deport Ed Snowden just because the American government and its' various shadow organizations want them to.
4.  why people assume that Ed Snowden must be at a Russian airport in the transit zone just because we are told that is where he is.   
5.  why some country doesn't just jump up and say "Come over here, Ed.  Stay with us."  Considering the circumstances, Ed Snowden needs immediate protection and immediate citizenship someplace else.
6.  why the conversation has centered around that bad boy hacker Ed Snowden instead of what the N.S.A. is doing.
7.  why the conversation has centered around that bad boy hacker Ed Snowden instead of why the N.S.A. appears to be able to dictate its' own doings without any real oversight from any other organization or from Congress or frigging anybody.
8.  why people are at all surprised by the recent revelations of exactly how deeply the N.S.A. is into monitoring all of us here and everyone in the whole world.
9.  why there is not more in the news about Boundless Informant.

 
Furthermore, the definition of a "terrorist" needs to be refined a bit.  I may be wrong but at least to me, it appears that:
1.  people who support or are in Anonymous are considered to be friends of terrorists or terrorists.  
2.  people who use encryption are considered to be suspect.
3.  people who use V.P.N.s or TOR are considered to have some kind of inherent criminal intent.


Problem #1:  I thought things were a bit odd last year and earlier this year when I realized that FedBook wanted our wallet names and wallet info [picture that!], when Google and Twitter and Yahoo and AOL wanted our cell phone numbers in order to open an e-mail account, when Google suddenly changed their TOS to be all inclusive when using any Google service, when the push was on to link various accounts together.  I distinctly remember the days before Google transformed into a Big Brother sort of outfit. 

Partial solution:  Don't use Fedbook.  No new e-mail accounts.  Search for an email account with a company that does not have dot com or dot net or dot biz after their name.  Use e-mail minimally and certainly not for communication purposes.
Drastic solution:  Get off of the internet entirely.  [For now, I will take my chances]. 
 
Problem #2:  I first suspected something was wrong this year when suddenly Google appeared to be vomiting on my searches when my computer was shielded under a proxy.

Solution:  Use another search engine.

Problem #3:  I first noticed something was wrong this year when suddenly Yahoo would not show up in a search engine when behind a proxy.

Solution:  Use another search engine. 

Problem #4: Obummer has offered "reassurance" that no one is listening in on our phone calls.

Solution:  Figure that A.I. bots which have been scripted to recognize certain code words are listening in on phone calls. 

Problem #5:  It is hard to know who is telling the truth and who is spinning a yarn.

Solution:  Carefully evaluate the evidence from a variety of source material.  Take nothing at face value.  

radical sapphoq says:  We the People have a right to know what is going on when a powerful shadowly agency is performing broadly based Big Data collections.  So much info has been collected and is being collected that a facility in Utah is being built to house it in.  Utah is an ideal location for such a facility to be built because a large number of National Guard recruits originate in Utah.
 
When an agency or organization [like the N.S.A.] is given carte blanche to do as it will with little to no meaningful oversight, a distinct possibility of abuse of power exists.  Meta-data is not innocuous.  If it were, the N.S.A. would not be interested in organizing meta-data through Boundless Informant. 

I like my privacy-- even though I in fact "have nothing to hide."  I am aware that if someone or some agency is hunting for something to report, the information will be found or manufactured or spun to suit the purposes of said person or agency.  Drama begets drama.  If the job order says "Find something," then something will be found.  I've learned that from investigations work.   

I prefer some transparency in my government to lies.  Certainly I prefer a smaller non-interfering (in my personal life or other peoples' personal lives) government to this stuff that is going on right now.  What the N.S.A. is doing under the guise of offering us security is unacceptable to me.  Security is not the opposite of privacy.