home

NSA Leak Source Comes Forward

Edward Snowden has come forward as the source of the recent NSA leaks.

Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old system administrator and former undercover CIA employee, unmasked himself Sunday as the principal source of recent Washington Post and Guardian disclosures about top-secret NSA programs, denouncing what he described as systematic surveillance of innocent citizens and saying in an interview, “it’s important to send a message to government that people will not be intimidated.”

He intends to seek asylum in another country.

< Timeline Of U.S. Surveillance Under Bush and Obama | George Zimmerman: Jury Selection Begins >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Video of Snowden talking with Glenn Greenwald. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    Glenn went to Hong Kong to interview Edward Snowden. This is video from that interview. It makes for interesting viewing.

    Snowden makes excellent points in explaining why he chose to reveal the domestic spying programs.
     

    Being Watched (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    In the three weeks since he arrived [Hong Kong], he has been ensconced in a hotel room. "I've left the room maybe a total of three times during my entire stay," he said. It is a plush hotel and, what with eating meals in his room too, he has run up big bills.

    He is deeply worried about being spied on. He lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping. He puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.

    Though that may sound like paranoia to some, Snowden has good reason for such fears. He worked in the US intelligence world for almost a decade. He knows that the biggest and most secretive surveillance organisation in America, the NSA, along with the most powerful government on the planet, is looking for him.

    Guardian

    I am going to refrain from any ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:09:41 PM EST
    ... further comment on this case, because Snowden formally worked for Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii, an information technology firm whose Honolulu offices are in my building.

    I literally had no idea what was really going on two floors above us at Booz Allen. I have a feeling we're going to have lots of federal visitors on our building premises over the next week or so.

    I will, however leave one final observation that apparently, Mr. Snowden was a Ron Paul supporter during the 2012 GOP primaries, and one must at least credit him with acting on his libertarian principles.

    Aloha.

    Pretty funny that according to your link (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 08:13:00 PM EST
    Booz Allen Hamilton is concerned about damage to its reputation, and possibly to its stock price, not from being exposed as a front for the CIA, but because one of its young, badly overpaid employees may have violated the terms of his security clearance when he undertook a heroic action to expose governmental overreaching -- that the government has been systematically violating the privacy rights of millions of ordinary Americans under the pretense of collecting information only on foreigners with links to terrorist activity. By the way, this is what the ACLU, the American Library Association, and others have been saying for more than ten years is wrong with the vaguely worded section 215 of the USA-PATRIOT Act.

    Parent
    ... -- threw it away with both hands, actually -- when we all first became enthralled with the wonders of the internet and world-wide web. Frankly, I've long been more concerned with the corporate overreach into our personal lives, particularly the notion that our personal information is a commodity to be bought, sold and traded, because that's where all this started.

    Corporations track our purchasing through our credit card usage, and they embed self-installing cookies and adware in the websites we visit, so that they can track our browsing. We allow GPS in our cell phones and iPads, and tolerate the handful of companies that determine whether or not we're a good credit risk. All in the name of commerce.

    While I'm glad people are finally waking up and acknowledging the inherent flaws in the USA-PATRIOT Act that many of us have been talking about for the last decade, speaking for myself only, it's hard for me to get really worked up at a government that's merely mining data from the mountains of long-since-disclosed personal information about ourselves.

    After all, we've been giving it away free for years, most of the time without even knowing or caring about it. PRISM is merely the logical conclusion to the encroaching corporate presence in our lives, a truly fascist program which reflects the confluence of state and corporate interests.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Google data farms must certainly have (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    more data on me than I ever thought possible. But they are not the ones that can lock me up based on any of it.  The worst part is the government-corporate cooperation. I never thought I would be so disturbed at what we have wrought.

    Parent
    It is more than just what we have wrought though (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    Remember when a few folks picked up on what law enforcement let slip about the Boston bombers?  That they could retrieve their old cell phone conversations once they had identified them?  Some people were like, "Hey, wait a minute here, really?"

    Then it is leaked that no longer do the royal "they" have to determine that both sides of a conversation must be foreign before it can be "collected" without FISA court consent.  Now they can "unwittingly" collect on all US citizens and the way it looks right now they are unwittingly collecting everything, and building databases of our connectivity (which is exactly how they begin breaking into terrorist organizations....they are treating every single one of us as if we are a potential current or future terrorist).

    You add to this that little item that Jeralyn had up not long ago  about how the FBI doesn't allow recordings of interviews, they have two agents and one takes notes and they "type interviews up" and the next thing you know you have lied or obstructed......with all that information collected on each one of us and those abilities to apply pain and suffering you've got turnkey fascism.

    Hell, I'm feeling sort of loyal, submissive, and nationalistic today.

    Parent

    When you say "we" (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    have been giving it away for years, consider this: a whole lot of us have been fighting the violations to our privacy, for years, and getting nothing but disrespect from politicians and unelected bureaucrats who are complicit in those actions. Tell me how we're supposed to be able to fight fire with fire when people like Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison scoff at our concerns, and say things like, "privacy is an illusion, you no longer have any privacy, so get used to it," while they laugh all the way to the bank.

    I realize that, as a political insider, you like to tell the rest of us all we have to do is vote out people we don't like, but that is a fantasy. The shredding of our civil liberties goes so much deeper and is so much more insidious than that. You really believe that we the citizens have some power over the corporate-dominated government lording over us?

    Please. This is the culmination of the military-industrial complex DDE warned about.

    We are frogs being slowly boiled in a pot of water.

    Parent

    This is an important discussion that we as a society need to have in public, because at the end of the day, it is really all about us as a society. And for far too long, far too many of us have simply shrugged off our inherent responsibilities as citizens to be an active participants in our own governance -- which includes oversight over our own elected officials.

    Instead, we've abrogated those responsibilities, and have allowed those we elect to public office do whatever they want and / or think best. We've further allowed our media to consolidate and re-consolidate under corporate suzerainty to the point where there are just a handful of independent sources left nowadays. And finally, we blithely accept their re-prioritization of what's important, and as a result we're now willingly fed a steady diet of gossip and (often ignorant) opinions, and we're to fat and lazy to demand the mundane but factual data we require as an effective, informed and functioning citizenry. This in turn has eroded our sense of shared community, as the desires of the individual or the few repeatedly trump the needs of the many.

    All I'm saying is that the powers-that-be haven't been doing anything to us, which we haven't already allowed them to do through our own not-so-benign acquiescence.

    When President Eisenhower warned the nation in his January 1961 farewell address about the looming menace of an encroaching military-industrial complex, he wasn't just talking about the government, but rather about also the multitude of corporate interests who were then rapidly becoming vested in the construction and maintenance of our burgeoning national security apparatus.

    Corporations do in fact wield enormous power and influence over our lives, because over time we've allowed them to garner both in the name of customer satisfaction and consumer convenience. When you are a frequent business traveler as I am, the airlines -- or Expedia, Travelocity, etc. -- will invite you to leave your credit card information on electronic file with them for future convenience whenever you make an airline / hotel reservation. We can either click yes or no, but how many of us have really considered the real implications of that "friendly suggestion" when we do so?

    The capacity for corporations to cross-reference our data in a collaborative effort to build customer databases profiles is really staggering, and they've been able to do so because we've ceded that ground to them. Remember how many of us years ago would register with a media website like the Washington Post, etc., only to suddenly find our e-mail inboxes soon overflowing to capacity with unwanted solicitations because that media source sold their own e-mail database -- with our addresses in it -- to another corporate interest? That was just the tip of the internet iceberg.

    In that regard, the surveillance activities in which the NSA has been engaged is not necessarily domestic espionage, although the potential for that is certainly there. Rather, and with corporate cooperation, the feds are simply amassing a consolidated database for their own future use, with the reams of personal information which those corporations have long since been gathering on us on their own databases -- our phone records, company billings, bank statements, personal purchases, credit reports, academic history, even our own health files, as the technology for electronic medical records makes them available.

    The aforementioned discussion I'm talking about must center upon our willingness and ability as private U.S. citizens, both as individuals and in the collective, to assert our constitutional rights to the integrity of our own personhood, which includes our personal data. We need to stop allowing either to be treated as a corporate commodity to be bought, sold, bartered, or given away upon request or subpoena of the federal government.

    In my honest opinion, it's not going to do any long-term good to focus solely upon government misbehavior and intrusion upon our lives, if we're not also willing to simultaneously require our corporate citizens to adhere to the same prescribed standards of conduct that we would now seek to impose upon any government-initiated oversight over our private activities and proclivities.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Respectfully Donald (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    BULL

    All I'm saying is that the powers-that-be haven't been doing anything to us, which we haven't already allowed them to do through our own not-so-benign acquiescence

    Try to get a job without a phone

    Attempt to make those scholarship earning grades without internet access.

    Bull Bull Bull Bull Bull Bull Bull....respectfully :)

    Parent

    First of all, who says we're not willing (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    to hold corporate America accountable?  Other than a lot of Republicans, too many Democrats, the Supreme Court, Barack Obama and the Department of Justice. Hello?  This is just the latest issue where we'd like accountability, not the first.

    Second, what does holding corporate America to some standards of reasonableness when it comes to information have to do with the constitutional imperatives that are meant to constrain government power?

    It was government that saw the potential to make use of information already being collected by internet search engines, telephone and cellphone companies, etc - so what did they do?  They wrote legislation that made is legal for them to appropriate personal information.

    You're kidding yourself if you think the government is going to break up with its corporate bedmates - I'm prepared to hear a lot of bluster and chatter and noise, but ultimately, I'm guessing the programs will stay, and Edward Snowden will be hunted down like a dog.


    Parent

    You're arguing with someone who ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    ... agrees with you, for the most part. But I'll have to take exception with your conclusion, Anne:

    "You're kidding yourself if you think the government is going to break up with its corporate bedmates -- I'm prepared to hear a lot of bluster and chatter and noise, but ultimately, I'm guessing the programs will stay, and Edward Snowden will be hunted down like a dog."

    You sound as though you've already conceded eventual defeat on this issue. Is that to be your excuse to throw up your hands and thus do nothing? Please don't let that be the case.

    Speaking for myself only, I'm conceding nothing here. What the NSA has been allowed to do in the name of our national security, thanks to the USA-PATRIOT Act and attendant legislation, has been a constitutional affront for the better part of at least a decade. Only now, thanks to these revelations, we've been afforded a definite (albeit fleeting) opportunity to actually correct the problem.

    But I will readily admit, as one of those "political insiders" shoephone was talking about, that I probably won't be able to affect much id anything in my own discussions with elected officials, if I and others like me can't also count upon people such as you and others here, to weigh in with those same officials from the outside, and compel them to take note of overall public dissatisfaction.

    This is one game that will, like it or not, be decided in the political realm, and it's therefore imperative that the crowd rush in and swamp the field of play, and not just carp at the so-called "players" from the bleachers. We need to make our elected officials do the right thing.

    So, if you want to see real change rather than just talk about it, then you must become an agent for that change -- which means that you must concede nothing, too. Call your Maryland congressional representatives, and don't be afraid to attend their next townhall meetings in your community and ask them the tough questions -- and further, and urge your family and friends to do likewise.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
    - Margaret Mead, Ph.D., anthropologist and humanitarian (1901-1978)

    The status quo as presently existing cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged by the masses. So, please take the initiative, be prepared to lead if necessary, and don't let anyone tell you that it's futile and you're wasting your time -- because it is not, and you most assuredly are not.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald - on how many issues now have (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    the people begged for accountability, pleaded for action on front after front, only to see, in the end, accommodations to corporate interests and justifications for the weakening of civil and constitutional rights made in the name of national security?

    Letters, phone calls, e-mails, faxes.  All the various Occupy groups.  

    No one's conceding anything, Donald - I'm just looking at how these crises have been dealt with in the past, and guessing that it will be a war of rhetoric between the forces who don't want to stop stripping us of whatever little bit of privacy we have left, and those who still believe the Constitution means something.  In case you haven't noticed, the forces for Constitutional rights are losing, because this administration has decided that the power of government is better brought to bear against those trying to force accountability by revealing the secrets the government doesn't want to share with us.

    It strikes me that the balance of power has shifted so far in the favor of government that it's going to take more than phone calls and faxes and e-mails to shift it back.  Elections aren't much of an answer anymore because the quality of the candidates is just execrable.  And yet, by the end of this summer, we will start being beaten to death with calls to vote for this one or that one because his or her opponent is so much worse.

    We are rapidly becoming controlled by just the idea that someone is listening, reading, watching, collecting - and how will we ever know that this little snippet or that little fragment won't be misconstrued or distorted and put us on the wrong side of the law?  What right will we have to explain, to contest, to protest?

    I have not given up, and I'm not likely to shut up anytime soon - but I am discouraged, and disheartened, not least by so much talk about whether it really matters who knows all about us, as long as we're not doing anything wrong.  And by arguments that, since we're using e-mail and cell phones and social media, we don't have any right to privacy.

    That's an argument you've perpetuated, Donald - not me, and it seems to me that's got to change if we have any hope of shifting the balance back where it needs to be - with the people.

    Parent

    Excellent, Donald. Excellent. (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    No, we didn't "forfeit" our privacy, (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    we understood that in order to participate in various forms of electronic communication we had to rely on a third party to carry information, whether conversational or transactional, from Point A to as many points we chose.  

    And while I am aware that companies that range from Google to the corner grocer are filtering the information that comes through their servers in order to spit out coupons or wave ads in our faces, I wasn't aware that the government was ever supposed to be one of the stops between my punching a phone number into my cell phone, and it being answered on the other end.

    I get why Google wants to know what sites I'm visiting, and that Amazon and my local retailers  want to track what I'm buying so they can try to get me to buy something else, but what I don't get is why these companies can be ordered to open their electronic files and hand over to the government my information without my permission or knowledge, and the government never has to explain in any specific way, related to any specific case, why it must have my information, what it intends to do with it and how long it is going to keep it.

    Collecting the metadata on your telephone calls and e-mails is not "merely mining data from the mountains of long-since-disclosed personal information about ourselves" -  choosing to have your phone number published in a hard copy of online directory for the entire world to see does not translate into the entire world knowing who you are calling, how long you spoke, when and how often you are calling them and where you or the person called are physically located.

    That's like saying that just because I drive my car over public roads that the government has the right to know where I'm going, and what I'm doing.  

    I really hate the argument that just because we have to use a third party carrier to get information from one point to the next that we have ceded all expectations of privacy.


    Parent

    This is why I have never signed up (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    for any store "loyalty" cards. I realize my debit and credit card are also being tracked for purchases, but the stores don't get to have all my personal information through those cards. Like kdog, I really prefer cash for most transactions! And I've never had a facebook or twitter account, I use duckduckgo for most internet searches, I have so far refused to get an I-phone, drive a fairly new car that doesn't have GPS, and yet... we can only do just so much.

    I do what I can to slow down the inevitable, but I know it's a losing game. The government can track my movements, where I stay and what I purchase when I travel. So, at this point, voting for candidate A or candidate B holds little interest, and gives me little faith.

    "These cards are marked."

     

    Parent

    According to NYT, Twitter is not as cosy (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    w/our government as Verizon, Google et al.

    Parent
    Well, we haven't ceded anything per se, ... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    ... as much as we've simply and repeatedly failed to assert our constitutional rights to the inherent integrity of our respective personhoods in the face of corporate encroachment, which includes the right to determine how our personal data is to be stored and used by others.

    If we allow our corporate citizens to amass these databases about us, it naturally follows that the national security complex is going to be very attracted to what's potentially inside those databases. After all, why should they re-invent electronic wheels, when there are virtual warehouses full of them already in existence?

    We can't simply look at government behavior through a silo, and believe that if we somehow place limits upon the conduct of federal operatives that everything will be fine. As long as those corporate databases with our personal information exist, the temptation on the part of those operatives to find some way around prospective restrictions to get their hands on that data will remain in play.

    Rather, we need to think of and employ some means to limit the extent and range of those databases themselves -- i.e., how long corporations can store personal data about our phone calls, transactions, etc. -- rather than play whack-a-mole with those operatives who might have or desire access to that data.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, you keep saying "we" (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    as if "we" are all the same, as if "we" are all just a bunch of naive little neophytes who have chosen to be nonchalant about this issue.

    I'm not part of your "we". I'm part of the "we" who have been agitating against this stuff for along time, unfortunately, without having any effect... because "we" don't have an ounce of power against it. It's the Borg, Donald.

    Parent

    ... with emphasis on the word "collectively." But collective political actions also require individual work and commitment to make them effective. How are you "agitating," if not as part of a group? There's a world of difference between effective agitation en masse, and simply being a multitude of lone voices crying in the wilderness.

    Trust me, shoephone, you guys are hardly political neophytes. You're all much more astute and observant than the average Joe and Jane out there, and it's high time you collectively -- there's that word again -- give yourselves credit for that, and use it to your advantage in concert with one another.

    You know, if we organized here at TL, and used that as a springboard to help organize others like-minded in our own communities and establish direct lines of communication between ourselves, I think you'd be very pleasantly surprised at the sort of influence we could potentially bring to bear collectively on issues.

    I've got a meeting to get to, and then I'm off to Hilo for work this afternoon and evening, and won't get back at 10:00 p.m. tonight, HST). It's been fun debating the issue and exchanging ideas with you. Take care.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Who is this "we" .. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by sj on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    YOU are talking about? I asked this of Slado and now I ask it of you. You are assigning a lot of motives and inaction and task assignments to some mysterious "we". It all sounds very reasonable, but "we" are not part of some well-funded think tank that is part of the Wurlitzer. Go for your path and do the things that you think you personally can do and stop preaching generalities to the rest of us. If you have a specific action that you think is meaningful and effective and you wish to add numbers to that action, then fine.  Better than fine. But what you are saying here is just a bunch of stating the obvious.

    Parent
    Ya gotta know fer shur (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    Yer being violated before you start swinging.  That was the real rub in all this Donald.  You didn't know, maybe you were suspicious but you DID NOT KNOW!

    Parent
    and that was so, ON PURPOSE (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    The commenter to whom you (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:05:28 PM EST
    are replying stated he would not comment!

    Parent
    Holy Shit! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    Booz Allen has always been Donald, roping us all in :)

    Parent
    That's right, MT. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:03:37 PM EST
    We'll all rock to the databases I can compile.

    Parent
    I like shiny things (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 05:06:10 PM EST
    But you already know that about me :)

    Parent
    I will not comment on ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    oculus: "The commenter to whom you are replying stated he would not comment."

    ... Edward Snowden's legal disposition, because as a non-attorney who's unfamiliar with national security law, I'd be doing so from ignorance.

    But nevertheless, Snowden's actions have afforded us an opportunity to make a course correction, and we should avail ourselves of it while the window's open.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    For Booz Allen this will be a (none / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:07:31 PM EST
    small ripple in the waters.  They took this guy from the CIA.

    Parent
    A videotaped (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 08:55:01 PM EST
    interview with Snowden is here.

    This man sounds like an American.

    The contrast with the ethos of what our government has become is stark and chilling.

    Most chilling is that he expressed that his greatest fear is that the revelations of these abuses by our government will have no impact whatsoever.

    I am afraid that he is right about that.

    Watch the video and see whether there is anything that he says that you could disagree with.

    I hope that there are many more people who will not stand by and let us be trampled by a bunch of authoritarian crazies in suits with flag-pins.

    Yes, most certainly. (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    I am thinking in particular of my friends (also friends of our hostess) who have been the assigned criminal defense lawyers for various accused foreign terrorists, whose telephone and internet communications were surely among those invaded, because to do the job the Sixth Amendment supposedly guarantees them the right and obligation to do, they must communicate with these folks and their family and associates (i.e., potential witnesses). Which the Supreme Court shamelessly refused to let them find out about and sue over just a few months ago, on the ground that they couldn't prove (before suing) that such surveillance had affected them. I also can't help noting the irony, in this context, of your confusing the word "discreet" (careful not to make too many disclosures) with the word "discrete" (particular individual).  And thanks for giving me an excuse to link again to one of my favorite websites.

    Booz Allen Hamilton (Edward Snowden's (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    employer) has become one of the largest and most profitable US corporations almost exclusively by serving a single client, the US government, according to Appelbaum& Lipton in their NYT article of June 10.

    The Obama administration's chief intelligence official, James Clapper, is a former Booz official, and  under the Bush administration that officer, John McConnell, now works for Booze. And, Booze was bought out in 2008 by the politically-connected Carlyle Group.

    The national security apparatus has been more and more privatized and turned over to contractors, said Danielle Brian, director of the Project on Government Oversight.  "This is something that the public is largely unaware of..."  It has gone so far, Ms Brian continued, that even the process of granting security clearances is often handled by contractors, allowing companies to grant government security clearances to private sector employees.

    Booz employees even work inside the  NSA facilities.  Booze has had at least one previous problem, when, in 2011, files were obtained by Anonymous, which claimed to have stolen encrypted military passwords.  Booze will surely be supportive of investigation of this leaker, since it is aware that its business will be damaged, as noted in its securities filings.

    The Security-Industrial state means hundreds (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:21:09 AM EST
    of billions of dollars of revenue to the fear-mongerers.  No foe is too insignificant, no threat too non-existential, to permit defunding these brave toilers in imagined valor.

    Oceania must prevail.

    Parent

    It is huge $$$$$ (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    People would be astounded at the increase of the % of cost for any defense article that goes into security these days. Is it needed? No one wants to say 'no' and get their a** handed to them.

    Parent
    Yes, and "privatizing" national (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    security has the benefit of being a new and lucrative source for campaign funding(if not a direct beneficiary).  In a rare show of bipartisanship (save for a few outliers on either side), we can expect comments from pooh poohing to stringing up the traitor.

    Parent
    Aren't they still selling a lot (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    of security-surveillance stuff to the freedom-loving, democracy-spreading Chinese?

    Because, as the expression goes, thier money is green..

    Parent

    People in the military that I consider (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    A bit scary go to work for Booz Allen.  If you want to be a spook that gets paid, take your qualifying service record to Booz Allen.

    Parent
    What's that make my brother? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:22:30 PM EST
    He works straight up for the NSA now.

    Seriously, though, I know my brother's personality quirks, and I don't think a profit-driven corp would ever hire him. The government, however, knows he is loyal to the max, and he will stay there forever, IMO.

    I wish I could kidnap and de-program him, except he hasn't really been programmed in the usual sense of the word psychologically. He's just an overly credulous person when it comes to certain things.

    Parent

    Most people who enjoy a military (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:46:39 PM EST
    Career are, and they are very decent people.  Accountability, accountability, accountability though and most are not afraid of that and that road.  And with more power must come more and more oversight.  That isn't how the existing powers that be want this done though.  And they aren't interested in what you or I think about any of it either.

    Parent
    well said (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    my bro is the living definition of unafraid of accountability. if i could instill in him a bit more critical capacity, i would. but everyone is different, and if they weren't, blah, get me outta here.

    Parent
    and i hope you've been catching my toons (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    been putting one or more up every day, like little secret gifts in an open thread. they make me laugh, and that's really all that matters.

    Parent
    I am behind (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    Today is a good day to catch up.  Knowing that they are collecting on us all constantly has kind of put a damper on how attractive the internet has been these last couple of days.  Mostly what they have on me over that time span are links to reading.  Facebook really seems like it sucks to me now, thinking about dumping my Facebook. What was I thinking?  My husband always always always told me I was dumb as a stooge (a bald recursive sorting algorithm) post for doing "The Facebook".

    Parent
    i do facebook for family/real friends (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    and i also try to skew their ad revenue, and hopefully a smidgen of their power, by constantly clicking on links for sh*t i'd never even think of buying, or search for stuff i don't care about. gotta phuck with the man while you're taking advantage of his free sh*t. really, that's all we got with FB and all the rest, the ability to phuck with their ad data on our whim. which is pretty powerful if it happens on any scale. so let's start it here. Boom. ;-)

    Parent
    Makes me want to post a fresh status (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    My new penis is healing well, but it itches.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    Something MY attorney can use

    Parent
    A good friend who spent her career (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    on behalf of consumer law will not do FB. Of course she also doesn't do TL or DK!

    Parent
    The Internet was fun (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:19:42 PM EST
    I am beginning to wonder if it is worth it though.  A smaller life has appeal as the collecting becomes exposed.

    Parent
    Oh go ahead. You have so (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:27:38 PM EST
    Much out there already!

    Parent
    I'm ancient in a few months (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    Though no parameters around "periods of time" have been given, leaker Snowden indicated that specifics are only kept for a period of time.

    What are the long term ramifications though of people realizing everything is being stored at least for a period of time?  How does it affect commerce and economies in a time when we fear all slowdowns?

    Parent

    Please address "cloud" and (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:12:40 AM EST
    "box" And U.S. gov't.'s access.

    Parent
    Wish I could (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:54:12 AM EST
    A techie I am not.  Reading more tonight, and I did not watch the Greenwald video from Morning Joe until just now.  I think we all knew that if someone inside the intelligence apparatus thought we were somehow a danger they could probably very easily get a warrant and have everything on us, but Greenwald says they have been listening to any of us/all of us at will with no warrant needed at all.

    For those who still say that we have all somehow consented to this, I think they are in shock and denial right now as to how bad this all really is.

    Parent

    Here is a link though (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 01:19:27 AM EST
    To how Snowden communicated with Greenwald, I guess we all need to get us some PGP encryption, whatever that is.  And Greenwald initially blew Snowden off, what a hoot!

    link

    Parent

    Thanks. I'm kind of surprised GG chose (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    Huff Post for the purpose of refuting the timeline of the Post writer.  

    Parent
    While it's still early in the day (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    Shares of Booz-Allen fell 5% this morning.

    Parent
    The "contracting out" aka outsourcing (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    of government services has been growing since the 1980s. Y'see, that way, the executive could say that the civilian government workforce had been trimmed...that it was economical...that the bureaucracy had been shrunk.  In reality, the immediate costs of certain outsourcing grew because the rate of pay was the equivalent of more than a few pay grades higher than civil service employees performing the same work.  While it has never been unusual, nor eyebrow-raising, to contract out specific engineering or general evaluation projects, the scope started to broaden in the 1990s and took off in the 2000s.  When the government started to contract out various personnel services as well as even legal services (in some instances) the invitation to abuse became a matter of time.

    IMO, this whole episode has so many onion-like layers and multi-tendrils.  In a strange way, this may be one of those "if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger" kind of things.  For one thing, it is almost a guarantee that certain contracting-out practices will get a long-needed review ... and, hopefully, curtailment. And--it almost goes without saying--that the question of "how far is too far & how much is needed" in the area of national security practices will get that needed dialogue & reconsideration.  In a very real way, last week's news stories might be the beginning of Post-post-9/11.  

    Parent

    Hypocrit? (2.33 / 3) (#2)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    The leaker says, "it's important to send a message to government that people will not be intimidated," then gets out of the country and aims to seek asylum.  I'd say the country has effectively intimidated him.

    I don't think you understand the definition (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:00:10 PM EST
    of hypocrite any better than you do the spelling.

    Parent
    So, what is the right word? (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:07:52 PM EST
    Thanks for the spell correct.  Now, what is the correct label?  I just thought it was ironic (that's probably the wrong word too, I'll defer to your mastery of English usage) that Snowdon actions in seeking asylum looks out of rig with his claim that the people won't be intimidated.

    Parent
    While we are searching for (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:36:43 PM EST
    good word descriptors, what would be a good English word for Director Clapper's testimony before Congress last March: Senator Wyden (D.OR) Does NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?  James Clapper. No sir. Wyden, It does not?  Clapper, Not wittingly.  There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.

    Some might say "liar" works, but not me, I say "accurate" since data is collected on all Americans, not just one millions or hundreds of millions of Americans--and probably American infants and toddlers data is collected unwittingly.  

    Parent

    Invert the question, or answer (none / 0) (#12)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    Good point.  There is another way to view it too.  There are probably millions who aren't subjected to communications surveillance, for various reasons (infancy, off the grid), so Clapper can claim he was referring to the millions that aren't subjectable to communications surveillance.

    Are you undertaking communications surveillance on millions of Americans?  (non-responsive) Answer: We are not undertaking communications surveillance on millions of Americans. (referring to those who are literally invisible for communications surveillance purposes)

    Anyway, I'd call him a liar, or prevaricator, if that's somehow a more accurate label.  It was a deliberately misleading answer, unless he is ignorant.

    Parent

    Maybe, ignorance can be his defense (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:04:38 PM EST
    should someone claim perjury in  that he lied with the intention to deceive.

    Parent
    Or he can assign "collection" elsewhere (none / 0) (#17)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    IOW, NSA does no collection, the communications companies do the bulk collection.  NSA just receives the bulk information, stores it, and analyzes it.

    Simultaneously, the NSA does some specialized collection on some people, but not millions of them in any given year.

    In some cases, I think the supposedly adverse "watchdog" Congresscrooks know which questions to safely ask, and studiously avoid asking the right question.  The questions sound great to most newsreaders, but in fact, they probably suck.

    Parent

    How could you possibly know what the NSA (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    is or isn't doing? Nobody but those with top secret security clearances in the government has any idea what the NSA is really doing, and how long they've been doing it. And that's the problem.

    In any case, Clapper said the NSA does collect metadata on millions of Americans, but that they're just warehousing it and not actually mining it for other data...

    If you believe this, you'd probably be easy to recruit as a spook.

    Parent

    Because in this day and age, you would (none / 0) (#25)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    never have the ability to put together the loans to buy a bridge.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#34)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:34:17 PM EST
    A person who acts in perfect accord with (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    his stated principles, as here, is no hypocrite.  Quite the opposite.  Although Gandhi thought otherwise (see "second principle" of civil disobedience), I perceive no moral obligation, attendant to those principles, to voluntarily subject yourself to the likely unjust prosecution and attempt to impose a gravely excessive punishment that might follow from the act, as seen in the Manning case.

    Parent
    He likely holds to more than one principle (none / 0) (#14)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:59:33 PM EST
    So, he says the people won't be intimidated.  Why is he seeking asylum?  Isn't that a sign of being intimidated?

    It's not a question of moral obligation or anything, and I don't disagree with the point that there is at least personal value in avoiding unjust prosecution and/or excessive punishment.  The disconnect that I'm commenting on is what appears to be a call or claim that others won't be intimidated (whatever that implies is, I'm sure, subject to all sorts of argument, but I see it as a sort of "stand and fight the bastards" sort of sentiment); and while I'll credit him with fighting the bastards, seeking asylum indicates some (probably rational) fear of the PTB, and "fear" is a factor in being intimidated.

    Parent

    Is not wanting to be arrested and jailed (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by shoephone on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:59:09 PM EST
    proof of "being intimidated"? I think not.

    Parent
    Intimidation can depend on location (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    From where I am right now, I'm not intimidated by Mike Tyson.  I'd be comfortable challenging him to an internet duel - even calling him a sissy.  But my claim of freedom from intimidation rings hollow because Tyson has no interest in defending his honor against my taunts.

    I wouldn't be intimidated by the US government or the mafia either, provided I was located out of their reach.  As it is, I hope I never become interesting to either group; and I don't see much difference between them except the US government is more powerful.

    Parent

    Couldn't it be the "people" he refers to (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    that shouldn't be intimidated are us, but since he has assumed the consequences for the rest, he has little option other than to abscond or end up in a US prison like Manning, or be stuck in the post room of another (two wouldn't fit over here!) Ecuadorian Embassy like Assange?

    In my books a practical thinker rather than a hypocrite.

    Parent

    Petition (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    A pardon for (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    "any crime that he may have committed," in advance of any prosecution, is indeed within the President's constitutional pardon power, as we learned from President Ford's anticipatory pardon of Richard Nixon.  And it seems the gentleman's name is spelled "Snowden," not "Snowdon."

    Parent
    Great posts, Peter (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by citizenjeff on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    More, please!

    Parent
    No crime (4.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Andreas on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    There are no indications that he commited any crime.

    Parent
    Oh.. A Bit Premature (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    More appropriate petition would Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Parent
    .....seriously? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jpe on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    I can't name title and section, but I'd happily wager ten bucks that some section of the criminal code will colorably cover his conduct.

    Parent
    Ellisworth cited the statutes that (none / 0) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:05:21 PM EST
    Snowden has violated tonight.  He has pretty good knowledge of this area of the law from personal experience.  That doesn't mean that what Snowden did was necessarily a bad thing as much as it means that he does, in fact, face the potential for serious consequences under the current law for his actions.

    Parent
    It may really come down to (none / 0) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:59:47 PM EST
    what China wants to do as Josh Marshall explains.
    link

    China can choose to hand Snowden to the United States or attempt to portray the situation as a reverse Chen Guangchen episode and lecture the United States. We will have to wait and see.

    Parent

    Sort of disappointed in Brandon Friedman (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:36:10 PM EST
    Tonight.  I had not kept track of him since he wrote his book, I see he works for the VA now.  He claims that Snowden's story begins unraveling tonight because Snowden says he was training for special forces when he broke both of his legs, and he came into the Army with only a GED.  Brandon Friedman claims special forces wouldn't take you with only a GED.  Friedman is sort of the one full of BS though.  If Snowden had the military testing scores, they would have taken him, particularly at that time.

    I don't know what to make of any of this at this point, but if this guys story begins unraveling I don't think that's the obvious starting point.

    Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:06:10 PM EST
    this is just insane. This is stuff that I have read in spy novels and always wondered whether they had some inside information and were writing from experience or if they were just very creative.

    A friend of mine and I were talking a few years back and I said recalling what happened when the Soviet Union fell and how many people found out there were "files" on them that one day the same thing would happen here.

    To me this is just the beginning. Has this been only going on since the Patriot Act or does this go back further?

    Parent

    It is hard to know how far they have gone (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:17:03 PM EST
    I have no reason to expect that there was a stopping point of late though.  Once you find out the FISA court doesn't really matter much, it is  basically a bauble for looks these days, there is nothing in the way of the royal "they".

    Who watches the watchers?

    Parent

    We once had senators like Frank Church. (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    We also once had (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    Senators like Paul Wellstone, too.  Unfortunately, both Church and Wellstone are dead.  And I doubt that they could be elected today, or even get nominated by the Democratic Party, given what the Democratic Party has become.

    Parent
    And Russ Feingold was the only senator (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:44:17 AM EST
    to vote against the Patriot Act. Even Wellstone voted for it.

    Parent
    Yes, very true. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    And unfortunately, Feingold was defeated in 2010.

    And then there is George McGovern.   I can remember the anger and shock in the Senate when he gave his speech criticizing the Vietnam War, during the debate on the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment.

    Every Senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. Every Senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval and all across our land--young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or faces or hopes. There are not very many of these blasted and broken boys who think this war is a glorious adventure. Do not talk to them about bugging out, or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes. And if we do not end this damnable war those young men will some day curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on us.

    Link.

    Bring back George McGovern, too.  And there are no Republicans any more like Mark Hatfield, for that matter.  I did not agree with many of his positions, but he was willing to break with his party.


    Parent

    McGovern was a mensch, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    They really don't make 'em like that anymore. But we could go back to the 60's and 70's and name dozens of politicians who stood up for us, stood up to the corrupt power mongers. And not one person in either chamber of congress today could be called an "orator." Or even "brilliant of mind." There are no more Barbara Jordans.

    Parent
    Oh, I miss (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    Barbara Jordan, too!
    Where are the Democrats of yesteryear?
    As I have said many, many times before, I didn't leave the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party left me.
    I'm getting too old.

    Parent
    Remember (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 08:20:30 PM EST
    Fulbright?

    After he saw the light, he did something about it.

    Parent

    We also once had.... (2.67 / 3) (#49)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    ...Senators like Joe McCarthy, Strom Thurmond and a cast of many crazed bigoted and contrary to Founding Principles jerks. I fail to see the point of this exercise.

    Parent
    the point is that we still (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    have a few like the ones you name. None like Wellstone and Feingold. I had hopes fro Franken - where has he been?

    Parent
    He's been (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    Here

    "There's a balance to strike between protecting Americans' privacy and protecting our country's national security. I don't think we've struck that balance. I'm concerned about the lack of transparency of these programs. The American public can't be kept in the dark about the basic architecture of the programs designed to protect them.

    "We need to revisit how we address that balance. I agree with Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) that the relevant significant FISA Court opinions should be made public to the degree possible, consistent with protecting national security."

    June 6, 2013

    Parent

    We still have Joe MacCarthys (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by shoephone on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    Ever heard of Ted Cruz? And we've still got tons of Strom Thurmonds too.

    The fact is that the Dems have no one like the ones  mentioned as  past role models. If you fail to see the point in discussing that, then refrain and leave it to others.  

    Parent

    Snowden Has Disappeared (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 06:49:13 PM EST
    Edward Snowden, 29, who provided the information for published reports last week that revealed the NSA's broad monitoring of phone call and Internet data from large companies such as Google and Facebook, checked out of his Hong Kong hotel hours after going public in a video released on Sunday by Britain's Guardian newspaper


    He checked out (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 09:42:04 PM EST
    because even with his previous $200,000 annual salary he couldn't pay his hotel bill. Planning obviously isn't his strong suit, but that's generally what happens when you don't finish high school.

    Parent
    Not Likely (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 10, 2013 at 11:41:52 PM EST
    But funny..  in a dark sort of way..

    My guess is that he is probably quite good at planning.

    Parent

    Not Here to Hide (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    Asked about his choice of Hong Kong to leak the information, Snowden said, "I am not here to hide from justice; I am here to reveal criminality."

    The newspaper quoted him as saying that he had several opportunities to flee from Hong Kong, but that he "would rather stay and fight the United States government in the courts, because I have faith in Hong Kong's rule of law."

    "My intention is to ask the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide my fate," he said.

    The Detroit News

    US Hacking HK and China Computers For Years (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    One of the targets in the SAR, according to Snowden, was Chinese University and public officials, businesses and students in the city. The documents also point to hacking activity by the NSA against mainland targets.

    Snowden believed there had been more than 61,000 NSA hacking operations globally, with hundreds of targets in Hong Kong and on the mainland.

    "We hack network backbones - like huge internet routers, basically - that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one," he said....

    ...Snowden's revelations threaten to test new attempts to build US-Sino bridges after a weekend summit in California between the nations' presidents, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping.

    If true, Snowden's allegations lend credence to China's longstanding position that it is as much a victim of hacking as a perpetrator, after Obama pressed Xi to rein in cyber-espionage by the Chinese military.

    link

    Someone should ask Snowden (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    whether China has been hacking into the computers of Tibetan monks for years and watch how he answers the question.
    link

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    Isn't that the point.. US has accused China of widespread hacking of civilian computers on an international scale, while swearing that US does not engage in that sort of bad behavior, as it is UNamerican...

    Besides, what he is offering is a glimpse of things that the US is secretly doing while publicly denying as well as  accusing others of doing ..

    his word on China's actions would carry less weight.

    Parent