US officials say another insider is leaking top-secret terror watch info

[Justin Kahn]

It has been nearly a year since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden began leaking classified information to the public, and new reports suggest there is someone else leaking top-secret documents now. Today, US government officials confirmed with CNN that there is indeed a new leaker handing over terror watch information to the media.

Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept, an investigative outfit that Snowden originally entrusted with a large stash of his information, has published a series of reports regarding the US government's terror watch list. Sourcing an anonymous member of the intelligence community, the latest of those reports says that more than 40% of the individuals on the list have "no recognized affiliation to terrorist groups."

The report continues by saying the terror watch list is accompanied by a "no-fly" watch list as well, but is actually part of a much larger record of documents known as the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE). TIDE lists over a million individuals, sometimes with much greater detail than just a name, that can be accessed and added to by a number of different US government organizations. The Interceopt report suggests the CIA, NSA, and FBI all have access to the master list, alongside the military and certain police departments including the NYPD.

Perhaps the most concerning numbers from the report, have to do with the specifics the government keeps on certain individuals. The list contains as many as 730,000 biometric files on a number of the individuals blacklisted, which according to reports contains 118,000 face images and 29,000 iris profiles. 

The government was fully aware The Intercept piece regarding this information was to be published and contacted the associated Press ahead of time in what appeared to be an attempt to get positive coverage. If this new leaker presents even a fraction as much data as Snowden, there is likely a lot more to come.

Image via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/57650-us-officials-say-another-insider-is-leaking-top-secret-terror-watch-info.html

 

[wastedkill]

Or in otherwords a potential Snowden Version 1.02

 

[Eddo22]

I can't say I would have a problem if someone(s) was leaking all the bad things my government (Canada) was doing. Evil is always made known eventually.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I can't say I would have a problem if someone(s) was leaking all the bad things my government (Canada) was doing. Evil is always made known eventually.

I'll make it easy for you. Between the Canadian govt and terrorist groups like Hamas and ISIS, the Canadian govt is the 'good' guy, and the terrorists are the 'bad' guys.

The sad part is, people are going to continue to think that it's important that the govt doesn't have their emails buried on some server until a bomb goes off, or a plane flies into a building, or a bunch of terrorists infect themselves with Ebola (they're giving it away free in Africa these days), grab a job at McDonalds and start spitting in burgers.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those concerned about privacy that maybe they weren't very old 13 years ago, when after 9/11 we asked ourselves, 'Do you remember what it was like before?' And we could, but everything we cared about before seemed so dumb afterward.

Yes, the 4th Amendment is important, but they didn't have email and texts in mind in 1790 whatever.
I doubt anyone in Tel Aviv cares whether the govt has a 'biometric file' on them these days.

 

[Archean]

@Mil
I suspect ISIS is the by product of US + Saudi + Isreali brains, to create a buffer and counter Iranians, to diminish their ability to support Hamas etc. So it is more of a Plan B to keep things in their favor. Since the Afghan war, and what happened after it, it is apparently clear that the above nexus would not hesitate to create & use 'militants' to achieve one end, and then rebrand them as 'terrorists' once it is time to dispatch them.

The sad fact is, we do not realize that imperialism is alive and kicking in disguise, hence the bigger powers' need to enforce their will upon the rest by whichever means they deem it fit. Add this to the other tragedy of our times, I.e. people have quit questioning the motives behind actions of their rulers.

 

[fimbles]

The word terrorism is an excuse to do whatever the hell you want with no consequences.

 

[melen001]

Our government, USA, has lied to us as early as 1776. We the People have the right to know what our elected officials are doing. We put them there and we must know what is going on..... We the People are the "boss" and they are our "employees". It's that simple......... And speaking about terrorism, well our government has held ties with just about every terrorist group there is and if not they have either funded them or they have created them..... Just look back in history, it speaks for it self......... can,t wait to see what the "patriot retards" will say about this ......

 

[Guest]

Man keeps trying to control others (by force, economics, laws, fear, intimidation, etc). While this may seem to work at times, it is just an illusion. Everything goes in cycles, what you give to others comes back to you. It's time to stop competing and time to start working together. Someday we will learn.

 

[Guest]

Was the suspect a female, possibly a girlfriend of edward snowden? (bella foxhole? )
edward snowden is a 'guest' of russia. is the current 'leaker' still not fired/caught?

 

[Guest]

Restrict the rights and freedom of 300000+ (the 40%) innocents and spy on everybody in the country (and every other country) to save the lives of perhaps a few hundred (911 likely being a special case cost 2977 lives). To put this in perspective, there were about 2,500,000 deaths, and approximately 31,000 car fatalities, and 14,400 murders in the USA last year.

Does the degree to which we're allowing the USA to gravitate towards a police state measure up to the numbers? To what extent will we allow unsubstantiated fear-mongering and justice-to-the-highest-bidder erode away the civil rights and liberties of average Americans?

 

[Eddo22]

I can't say I would have a problem if someone(s) was leaking all the bad things my government (Canada) was doing. Evil is always made known eventually.

I'll make it easy for you. Between the Canadian govt and terrorist groups like Hamas and ISIS, the Canadian govt is the 'good' guy, and the terrorists are the 'bad' guys.

The sad part is, people are going to continue to think that it's important that the govt doesn't have their emails buried on some server until a bomb goes off, or a plane flies into a building, or a bunch of terrorists infect themselves with Ebola (they're giving it away free in Africa these days), grab a job at McDonalds and start spitting in burgers.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those concerned about privacy that maybe they weren't very old 13 years ago, when after 9/11 we asked ourselves, 'Do you remember what it was like before?' And we could, but everything we cared about before seemed so dumb afterward.

Yes, the 4th Amendment is important, but they didn't have email and texts in mind in 1790 whatever.
I doubt anyone in Tel Aviv cares whether the govt has a 'biometric file' on them these days.

They are all bad. They are just working at being evil in different ways.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

@Mil
I suspect ISIS is the by product of US + Saudi + Isreali brains, to create a buffer and counter Iranians, to diminish their ability to support Hamas etc. So it is more of a Plan B to keep things in their favor. Since the Afghan war, and what happened after it, it is apparently clear that the above nexus would not hesitate to create & use 'militants' to achieve one end, and then rebrand them as 'terrorists' once it is time to dispatch them.

The sad fact is, we do not realize that imperialism is alive and kicking in disguise, hence the bigger powers' need to enforce their will upon the rest by whichever means they deem it fit. Add this to the other tragedy of our times, I.e. people have quit questioning the motives behind actions of their rulers.

Militants and terrorists are actually easy to tell apart if you just look at who they target. If the US + Saudi + Israeli combo is funding afghans to fight Russia (I assume this what you're referring to) they are funding them to fight Russia's military, not kill Russian kids. It's not an issue of, 'we'll call them militants because they're fighting one of our enemies' but if they turn on us, then they're terrorists. It's an issue of who they're killing. (Of course, Obama calls them all 'folks', so if you listen to him, I can see why you're confused.)

If they fight a govt and an army, they're militants, if they randomly kill anyone they can, like kidnapping school girls in Nigeria, or going door to door and killing whoever answers, then that's terrorism.

You can compromise with a militant; give them land... or leave their land, etc. You can't compromise with a terrorist. They want you dead because of who you are, and unless we all decide to take up Islam, live by Sharia law and enslave our women, then they will always want us dead.

What is 'the tragedy of our times' as you put it? This surveillance we have in America? This so-called imperialism? The fact that we don't understand our ruler's motives?
We know our ruler's motives. Get elected. that's it. You can bet they'll put our safety behind their election campaign.

 

[Bubbajim]

"Terrorism" is a political tactic. It's using fear, violence and threats of violence to bring about political change. They don't want to kill you "because of who you are", they want to kill enough of us that the rest will fall in line and accept their rule(s)/law(s).

"Militants" is, in my opinion, a lazy term. It's just anyone who favours military tactics to further a cause. Similar to terrorism, except it's not strictly ideology based. You can be a militant using arms and violence (as you said) for land, for example.

Your assertion that people will stop complaining when we (and I think inevitably) are subject to another atrocity like 9/11 is false. We are awake to the need for some level of surveillance, but many of us don't agree that the current levels are proportionate or successful. If any government really wanted to prove that their mass-surveillance was fit-for-purpose then they should either release information of plots they foiled, or, if not wanting to disclose fully to the public, then pass information to a selection of independent organisations to arbitrate if their measures are working.

The protection of liberty has to be sacrosanct. If we are to live in mature civilisations, we have to accept risks, but mitigate them through things like education - not criminally infringe on the rights of 99% of people in the hope that we might stop a future event.

Finally, your posts seem to imply that you believe that governments are benign and won't abuse the vast data and surveillance powers they're accruing in the name of "fighting Terror!". History suggests that power imbalances don't end well.

 

[Guest]

@ MilwaukeeMike: You're so right. The American government should totally continue spending 500 Million dollars per victim of terrorism and 10 thousand per cancer victim. They spend 150 TRILLION dollars a year preventing terrorism which amounts to 300 deaths per year. You're more than 3 times as likely to die from a strike of lightning than a terrorist attack. It's as worse than the "war" on drugs.

We (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand), are part of an intelligence sharing agreement. I'm not convinced that we're the 'good guys'.

 

[Archean]

Militants and terrorists are actually easy to tell apart if you just look at who they target. If the US + Saudi + Israeli combo is funding afghans to fight Russia (I assume this what you're referring to) they are funding them to fight Russia's military, not kill Russian kids. It's not an issue of, 'we'll call them militants because they're fighting one of our enemies' but if they turn on us, then they're terrorists. It's an issue of who they're killing. (Of course, Obama calls them all 'folks', so if you listen to him, I can see why you're confused.)

I wasn't referring to Afghan war, but as in general, this has been the modus operandi of US since WWII, I.e. prop up opposition where there may be none, fund them, arm them, achieve whatever goal which is required at the given time (e.g. it was Oil when it came to Iraq) and move on. IF someone come back to bite (in case they are not happy with the new arrangement) brand them as 'terrorists'. So basically you are simply supporting my argument.

Recent example of this imperialistic expansionism is how US & Co. (just search for Victoria Nuland's role in this whole saga from planning to execution) in Ukraine. Oh by the way before all that money was promised to the newly installed nazis in government, Ukrainian gold was transferred through secret flights.

If they fight a govt and an army, they're militants, if they randomly kill anyone they can, like kidnapping school girls in Nigeria, or going door to door and killing whoever answers, then that's terrorism.

You can compromise with a militant; give them land... or leave their land, etc. You can't compromise with a terrorist. They want you dead because of who you are, and unless we all decide to take up Islam, live by Sharia law and enslave our women, then they will always want us dead.

I don't have enough knowledge about Nigerian conflict atm, but will try to find out the dynamics behind it soon. However, the main characteristics of 'spreading terror' through targeting civilians is similar to many other such conflicts.

Militants and terrorists are actually easy to tell apart if you just look at who they target. If the US + Saudi + Israeli combo is funding afghans to fight Russia (I assume this what you're referring to) they are funding them to fight Russia's military, not kill Russian kids. It's not an issue of, 'we'll call them militants because they're fighting one of our enemies' but if they turn on us, then they're terrorists. It's an issue of who they're killing. (Of course, Obama calls them all 'folks', so if you listen to him, I can see why you're confused.)

You can compromise with a militant; give them land... or leave their land, etc. You can't compromise with a terrorist. They want you dead because of who you are, and unless we all decide to take up Islam, live by Sharia law and enslave our women, then they will always want us dead.

As you said same people who were once so subservient, once they become opposing force, become 'terrorists', so basically opposing US will is now terrorism, right?

Going with this logic, Eastern Ukrainian Russian population doesn't want to be part of this new US backed dispensation of the country, and are resisting it (with the help of Russians off course), are branded by US as 'terrorists'.

On Imperialism, one simple example can be, do you know German gold confiscated by US in WWII (I.e. 3,386 tons of it, IF I am not mistaken), is still in US control? Why US don't return it to its rightful owner, that is German Govt/People? I suspect, it is because they know it is a very good leverage to keep Germans in line with their wishes.

To a certain extent, this sort of method(s) guarantee $ hegemony on financial system of the world, I believe that IF $ is kicked off its top spot, sustaining US military complex, and flexing it to maintain overall hegemony on rest of the world will become pretty difficult.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I wasn't referring to Afghan war, but as in general, this has been the modus operandi of US since WWII, I.e. prop up opposition where there may be none, fund them, arm them, achieve whatever goal which is required at the given time (e.g. it was Oil when it came to Iraq) and move on. IF someone come back to bite (in case they are not happy with the new arrangement) brand them as 'terrorists'. So basically you are simply supporting my argument.

No. They're terrorists because they're spreading terror. They're going door to door killing people if they don't convert to Islam. If you don't understand how that's terrorism, then no amount of me trying to convince you is going to change your mind. And I know this because of this line...

It was Oil when it came to Iraq

Iraq wasn't about oil, no matter how much sense it may make. It makes sense on paper because they have oil and we need oil, therefore we're there to take it. But there is no evidence of it. None at all. When the US invaded, they didn't go after the oil fields and secure them. They didn't ship oil back home and lower our gas prices. They didn't get Iraq to sign exclusive contracts with the US. None of it. Iraq has some of the cheapest oil extraction in the world... yet we get most of our oil from Canada where it's expensive. If we invaded Iraq for oil, then where's the oil?

They went to Iraq to overthrow the govt and setup a democracy...which was why they went straight to Baghdad, ran out Saddam and held elections a few years later.
If you use evidence instead of what you think makes, you'll come to a different conclusion.

 

[Archean]

I don't believe 'importing oil' was the end goal either, but rather 'control' over the resource is the real objective, and that is where Iraq war comes in, all the major oil fields are effectively under control of US/Allied oil corporations. Also, I don't believe giving cheap oil to US or European populations is important for them, the way system works, it is designed to protect interests of the few.

Iraqi democracy** is a joke, it ended up marginalizing minority populations, unfortunately US&Co didn't understood this earlier on that once current shia regime took over, they effectively gave Iraq in a plate to Iran, resulting in considerable decline of any remaining influence they could have in the region. To redress this, Syrian uprising was a tool to disrupt and dent Iranian reach, and again Saudis came to front on behest of US/Allies (and to help with money and arms), resulting in uncontrolled expansion of war from Syria to Iraq courtesy ISIS. Also, there may be (assumption) another dimension to this whole drama, I remember reading some Israeli discussion regarding creation of a sunni state out of Iraq/Syria, I’d say a ‘buffer sunni state’, few years ago, perhaps they too have something to do with it. Since, any un-natural state creation involves lots of brutality & violence, one can understand the nature of ISIS actions.

Would you mind giving some links regarding their ‘forced conversion’ events? Thanks.

** IMHO democracy is a tool that facilitates personal and commercial self-interests in today’s world, providing equality and justice in society in a wholistic way, is of least importance at best.

Edit:
There are ten reasons for Iraq War:

1–Exxon Mobil
2–Chevron
3–Aspect Energy
4–Marathon Oil Corporation
5–Hillwood International Energy
6–Hunt Oil
7–Prime Oil
8–Murphy Oil
9–Hess Corporation
10–HKN Energy

Go figure, rest is just history