It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Springer
The problem I've found with these types of 'truther' magazines is that they either stay too far under the radar for people to really notice them (like TrueActivist, my favourite underground online magazine).
They get to the point where they start accepting financial backing, then they are at the whim of their investors and it becomes the very thing they started fighting against.
I wish them all the best and I am very curious as to what the other Edward Snowden leaks are, I've had a quick skim on it and they have some real good info on it already, however, they need some real independent backing (they don't talk about how they're funded on the website, that is important to me).
Good Luck to them and good find Springer,
edit on 10-2-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)
Glenn Greenwald, who has made headlines around the world with his reporting on U.S. electronic surveillance programs, is leaving the Guardian newspaper to join a new media venture funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, according to people familiar with the matter.
The online news venture backed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar debuted Monday, featuring fresh revelations about US intelligence from investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald.
The Intercept is the first publication to come from Omidyar’s First Look Media announced last year.
The entrepreneur and philanthropist has pledged $250 million for the venture and has allocated the first $50 million to start operations.
reply to post by Springer
This is great, I mean, information is good. But all this smells fishy. Snowden is becoming a superstar. It reminds me so much of Operation Infektion, during which the Russians tried to create an anti-american fifth column by leak "truth" and scandals to the american populations.
I'm not saying that the US government is runned by angels. I'm just saying that to me, as a non-american non-russian observer, this seems like another war between a now allied Russia-China against the US. Instead of exchanging nukes, they exchange leaks and scandals.
To my eyes, it's no coincidence that China is, along with the US, one big hacker's haven. It so happens that Wikileaks runs on hackers (which means many of these hackers are from communism). For God's sake, they view Mao Tsedong as a hero over there - even thought Tsedong killed 4 times as many people (in the name of "anti-fascism" and "reform") than Hitler did. It so happens, also, that representative of Wikileaks met with Snowden in Hong-Kong, China - The city of the Triad. And it so happens that the Russian government is in very good terms with Snowden.
edit on 10-2-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)
The site is up and doing fine, I don't know why anyone would get a 503 error unless they were doing maintenance, or, the person seeking the site is using a verklempt browser (Opera comes to mind instantly).
As far as the "this smells fishy" crowd goes; EVERYTHING online is "fishy" until proven otherwise, let's give them a chance. I believe with the $250M backing they are bulletproof, but, I've been wrong before.
As soon as we resolved to build The Intercept, we set out to recruit many of the journalists whose work we have long respected and admired: those who have a proven track record of breaking boundaries, taking risks, and producing innovative, rigorous journalism.
Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).
But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?