Glenn Greenwald Jeder User hat das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung.
Glenn Greenwald ist ein US-amerikanischer Journalist, Blogger, Schriftsteller und Rechtsanwalt. Weltweite Bekanntheit erlangte Greenwald, als er die von Edward Snowden im Jahr übermittelten Dokumente. Glenn Greenwald (* 6. März in New York City) ist ein US-amerikanischer Journalist, Blogger, Schriftsteller und Rechtsanwalt. Weltweite Bekanntheit. "Tendenzen von Repression": Glenn Greenwald erhebt schwere Vorwürfe gegen das von ihm mitgegründete Projekt "The Intercept". Grund ist. Glenn Greenwald behauptet, das Portal "The Intercept" habe ihn zensieren wollen. Das Portal weist das in deutlichen Worten zurück. Glenn Greenwald steigt aus dem von ihm mitbegründeten investigativen Journalismus-Projekt "The Intercept" aus. Foto: AFP. New York/. US-Journalist Glenn Greenwald ist bei seinem eigenen Projekt «The Intercept» ausgestiegen. Auslöser war ein Streit um einen Artikel über Joe. Bereits in seinen ersten Artikeln über die NSA-Affäre brachte Glenn Greenwald das ganze Ausmaß der Massenüberwachung im digitalen Zeitalter ans Licht.
I think it lies more readily. ABC News. He called the investigation "a scam and a fraud Jessica Jones Comic the beginning" in an appearance on Democracy Now! More problematic, obviously, this tendency towards contrarian criticism has Liliane Susewind Stream aligned him with the far right. New York, November 27, Still I did nothing. July 9, Deinem Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. Glenn Greenwald Navigation menu Video
The world after Covid with journalist Glenn Greenwald
Der Journalist Glenn Greenwald spricht im Interview über die Festnahme seines Partners am Flughafen Heathrow und die Frage, wie gut sich USB-Sticks. Gemeinsam mit Edward Snowden deckte er den NSA-Skandal auf. Im Interview spricht Glenn Greenwald über die Macht von Enthüllungen und journalistische. Der Whistleblower Edward Snowden gibt mittlerweile häufig Interviews und wird bei vielen Events per Video zugeschaltet. Mit dem Journalisten Glenn. Kritischer, unabhängiger Journalismus der linken Nachrichtenseite taz: Analysen, Hintergründe, Kommentare, Interviews, Reportagen. Genossenschaft seit. If WikiLeaks published them as authentic, it would suffer a serious blow to its credibility. Laura and I were aware of all the pitfalls but we discounted them, relying instead on our intuition.
Something intangible yet powerful about those emails convinced us that their author was genuine. He wrote out of a belief in the dangers of government secrecy and pervasive spying; I instinctively recognized his political passion.
I felt a kinship with our correspondent, with his worldview, and with the sense of urgency that was clearly consuming him. Over the past seven years, I had been driven by the same conviction, writing almost on a daily basis about the dangerous trends in US state secrecy, radical executive power theories, detention and surveillance abuses, militarism, and the assault on civil liberties.
There is a particular tone and attitude that unites journalists, activists, and readers of mine, people who are equally alarmed by these trends.
It would be difficult, I reasoned, for someone who did not truly believe and feel this alarm to replicate it so accurately, with such authenticity.
He needed another four to six weeks, and we should wait to hear from him. He assured us that we would. Three days later, Laura and I met again, this time in Manhattan, and with another email from the anonymous leaker, in which he explained why he was willing to risk his liberty, to subject himself to the high likelihood of a very lengthy prison term, in order to disclose these documents.
Now I was even more convinced: our source was for real, but as I told my partner, David Miranda, on the flight home to Brazil, I was determined to put the whole thing out of my mind.
He could change his mind. He could get caught. After returning to Rio, I heard nothing for three weeks. I spent almost no time thinking about the source because all I could do was wait.
Then, on May 11, I received an email from a tech expert with whom Laura and I had worked in the past. Do you have an address I can mail you something to help you get started next week?
That, in turn, meant Laura had heard from our anonymous emailer and received what we had been waiting for. The tech person then sent a package via Federal Express, scheduled to arrive in two days.
I did not know what to expect: a program, or the documents themselves? For the next forty-eight hours, it was impossible to focus on anything else.
But on the day of scheduled delivery, p. Then five. Then a full week. Every day FedEx said the same thing—that the package was being held in customs, for reasons unknown.
I briefly entertained the suspicion that some government authority—American, Brazilian, or otherwise—was responsible for this delay because they knew something, but I held on to the far likelier explanation that it was just one of those coincidental bureaucratic annoyances.
Finally, roughly ten days after the package had been sent to me, FedEx delivered it. I tore open the envelope and found two USB thumb drives, along with a typewritten note containing detailed instructions for using various computer programs designed to provide maximum security, as well as numerous passphrases to encrypted email accounts and other programs I had never heard of.
I had no idea what all this meant. I had never heard of these specific programs before, although I knew about passphrases, basically long passwords containing randomly arranged case-sensitive letters and punctuation, designed to make them difficult to crack.
With Poitras deeply reluctant to talk by phone or online, I was still frustrated: finally in possession of what I was waiting for, but with no clue where it would lead me.
The day after the package arrived, during the week of May 20, Laura told me we needed to speak urgently, but only through OTR off-the-record chat, an encrypted instrument for talking online securely.
I asked about whether I now had access to the secret documents. They would only come to me from the source, she told me, not from her. Laura then added some startling new information, that we might have to travel to Hong Kong immediately, to meet our source.
Now I was baffled. What was someone with access to top secret US government documents doing in Hong Kong?
I had assumed that our anonymous source was in Maryland or northern Virginia. What did Hong Kong have to do with any of this?
I was willing to travel anywhere, of course, but I wanted more information about why I was going. I wanted to be certain that this would be worthwhile, meaning: Had she obtained verification that this source was real?
But she also told me about a brewing problem. The source was upset by how things had gone thus far, particularly about a new turn: the possible involvement of the Washington Post.
Laura said it was critical that I speak to him directly, to assure him and placate his growing concerns. I chalked that up to miscommunication and replied immediately.
I added his user name to my OTR buddy list and waited. Within fifteen minutes, my computer sounded a bell-like chime, signaling that he had signed on.
Right off the bat, I told him I was absolutely committed to the story. The source—whose name, place of employment, age, and all other attributes were still unknown to me—asked if I would come to Hong Kong to meet him.
I did not ask why he was in Hong Kong; I wanted to avoid appearing to be fishing for information. Indeed, from the start I decided I would let him take the lead.
If he wanted me to know why he was in Hong Kong, he would tell me. And if he wanted me to know what documents he had and planned to provide me, he would tell me that, too.
This passive posture was difficult for me. But I assumed his situation was delicate. Whatever else was true, I knew that this person had resolved to carry out what the US government would consider a very serious crime.
It was clear from how concerned he was with secure communications that discretion was vital. And, I reasoned,—since I had so little information about whom I was talking to, about his thinking, his motives and fears—that caution and restraint on my part were imperative.
I did not want to scare him off, so I forced myself to let the information come to me rather than trying to grab it. We spoke online that day for two hours.
His first concern was what was happening with some of the NSA documents that, with his consent, Poitras had talked about to a Washington Post reporter, Barton Gellman.
Rather than report the story quickly and aggressively, the Washington Post had assembled a large team of lawyers who were making all kinds of demands and issuing all sorts of dire warnings.
To the source, this signaled that the Post , handed what he believed was an unprecedented journalistic opportunity, was being driven by fear rather than conviction and determination.
He was also livid that the Post had involved so many people, afraid that these discussions might jeopardize his security.
He returned to that again and again: come to Hong Kong immediately. The other significant topic we discussed in that first online conversation was his goal.
I knew from the emails Laura had shown me that he felt compelled to tell the world about the massive spying apparatus the US government was secretly building.
But what did he hope to achieve? I knew from my years of writing about NSA abuses that it can be hard to generate serious concern about secret state surveillance: invasion of privacy and abuse of power can be viewed as abstractions, ones that are difficult to get people to care about viscerally.
But this felt different. The media pays attention when top secret documents are leaked. And the fact that the warning was coming from someone on the inside of the national security apparatus—rather than an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer or a civil liberties advocate—surely meant that it would have added weight.
That night, I talked to David about going to Hong Kong. I was still reluctant to drop all of my work to fly to the other side of the world to meet someone I knew nothing about, not even his name, particularly since I had no real evidence that he was who he said he was.
It could be a complete waste of time—or entrapment or some other weird plot. As usual, I took his advice. When I signed on to OTR the next morning, I said I was planning to leave for Hong Kong within days but first wanted to see some documents so that I understood the types of disclosures he was prepared to make.
To do that, he told me again to install various programs. I then spent a couple of days online as the source walked me through, step by step, how to install and use each program, including, finally, PGP encryption.
I kept apologizing for my lack of proficiency, for having to take hours of his time to teach me the most basic aspects of secure communication. And I have a lot of free time right now.
I un-zipped the file, saw the list of documents, and randomly clicked on one of them. This meant the document had been legally designated top secret, pertained to communications intelligence COMINT , and was not for distribution to foreign nationals, including international organizations or coalition partners NOFORN.
Nothing of this significance had ever been leaked from the NSA, not in all the six-decade history of the agency. I now had a couple dozen such items in my possession.
And the person I had spent hours chatting with over the last two days had many, many more to give me. That first document was a training manual for NSA officials to teach analysts about new surveillance capabilities.
Basically, I was eavesdropping on NSA officials as they instructed their analysts on how to listen in on their targets.
My heart was racing. I had to stop reading and walk around my house a few times to take in what I had just seen and calm myself enough to focus on reading the files.
The source also said he was sending me a large file that I would be unable to access until the time was right.
I decided to set aside that cryptic though significant statement for the moment, in line with my approach of letting him decide when I got information but also because I was so excited by what I had in front of me.
This meant involving the Guardian , the newspaper and online news website that I had joined as a daily columnist only nine months earlier.
Now I was about to bring them in to what I knew already would be a major explosive story. My agreement with the Guardian was that I had full editorial independence, which meant that nobody could edit or even review my articles before they ran.
I wrote my pieces, and then published them directly to the Internet myself. The only exceptions to this arrangement were that I would alert them if my writing could have legal consequences for the newspaper or posed an unusual journalistic quandary.
That had happened very few times in the previous nine months, only once or twice, which meant that I had had very little interaction with the Guardian editors.
Obviously, if any story warranted a heads-up, it was this one. But he says he has many, many more. My plan, which I told Laura, was to fly to New York, show the documents to the Guardian , get them excited about the story, and then have them send me to Hong Kong to see the source.
Laura agreed to meet me in New York, and then we intended to travel together to Hong Kong. It is much more difficult to subject an Internet-free computer to surveillance.
To monitor an air gapped computer, an intelligence service such as the NSA would have to engage in far more difficult methods, such as obtaining physical access to the computer and placing a surveillance device on the hard drive.
Keeping the computer close at all times helps prevent that type of invasion. Gibson was waiting for us when we arrived.
Laura sat outside. I had no idea how the Guardian editors would react to what I had. I sat on a sofa and watched them read, observing the shock registering on their faces when the reality of what I possessed began to sink in.
Each time they finished with one document, I popped up to show them the next one. Their amazement only intensified.
In addition to the two dozen or so NSA documents the source had sent, he had included the manifesto he intended to post, calling for signatures as a show of solidarity with the pro-privacy, anti-surveillance cause.
The manifesto was dramatic and severe, but that was to be expected, given the dramatic and severe choices he had made, choices that would upend his life forever.
It made sense to me that someone who had witnessed the shadowy construction of a ubiquitous system of state surveillance, with no oversight or checks, would be gravely alarmed by what he had seen and the dangers it posed.
Of course his tone was extreme; he had been so alarmed that he had made an extraordinary decision to do something brave and far-reaching.
I understood the reason for his tone, although I worried about how Gibson and Millar would react to reading the manifesto. And besides, anyone who does something this extreme is going to have extreme thoughts.
Along with that manifesto, Snowden had written a missive to the journalists to whom he gave his archive of documents. It sought to explain his purpose and goals and predicted how he would likely be demonized:.
My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them. The U. They protect their domestic systems from the oversight of citizenry through classification and lies, and shield themselves from outrage in the event of leaks by overemphasizing limited protections they choose to grant the governed.
The enclosed documents are real and original, and are offered to provide an understanding of how the global, passive surveillance system works so that protections against it may be developed.
While I pray that public awareness and debate will lead to reform, bear in mind that the policies of men change in time, and even the Constitution is subverted when the appetites of power demand it.
In words from history: Let us speak no more of faith in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of cryptography.
The Guardian was on board. My mission in New York had been accomplished. Now I knew that Gibson was committed to pursuing the story aggressively, at least for the moment.
The best option was a sixteen-hour non-stop flight on Cathay Pacific that left from JFK the next morning. But just as we began to celebrate our imminent meeting with the source, we ran into a complication.
At the end of the day, Gibson declared that she wanted to involve a longtime Guardian reporter, Ewen MacAskill, who had been at the paper for twenty years.
More important, neither did the source, and as far as he knew, only Laura and I were coming to Hong Kong.
And Laura, who plans everything meticulously, was also bound to be furious at this sudden change in our plans. I was right.
Who has vetted him? Given how much the Guardian had at stake, I reasoned that they likely wanted someone they knew very well—a longtime company man—to tell them what was going on with the source and to assure them that this story was something they should do.
Besides, Gibson would need the full support and approval of the Guardian editors in London, who knew me even less well than she did.
She probably wanted to bring in someone who could make London feel safe, and Ewen fit that bill perfectly. I went back to Gibson with what seemed like a smart compromise, but she was determined.
Clearly, Ewen coming with us to Hong Kong was crucial to the Guardian. Gibson would need assurances about what was happening there and a way to assuage any worries her bosses in London might have.
But Laura was just as adamant that we would travel alone. No way. And they were sending him on that plane no matter what. In the car on the way to the airport, Laura and I had our first and only argument.
I gave her the news as soon as the car pulled out of the hotel and she exploded with anger. I was jeopardizing the entire arrangement, she insisted.
It was unconscionable to bring some stranger in at this late stage. And Ewen would only meet the source when we were ready.
To placate her anger, I even offered not to go, a suggestion she instantly rejected. We sat in miserable, angry silence for ten minutes as the car was stuck in traffic on the way to JFK.
In a short time, we returned to a state of calm. Ewen was already at our gate when we arrived. Laura and I were cordial but cold, ensuring that he felt excluded, that he had no role until we were ready to give him one.
He was the only present target for our irritation, so we treated him like extra baggage with which we had been saddled.
Laura had given me a five-minute tutorial on the secure computer system in the car and said she intended to sleep on the plane.
She handed over the thumb drive and suggested that I start looking at her set of documents. Once we arrived in Hong Kong, she said, the source would ensure I had full access to my own complete set.
For the next sixteen hours, despite my exhaustion, I did nothing but read, feverishly taking notes on document after document.
A lot of them were worse. One of the first I read was an order from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA court, which had been created by Congress in , after the Church Committee discovered decades of abusive government eavesdropping.
The idea behind its formation was that the government could continue to engage in electronic surveillance, but to prevent similar abuse, it had to obtain permission from the FISA court before doing so.
I had never seen a FISA court order before. Almost nobody had. The court is one of the most secretive institutions in the government. All of its rulings are automatically designated top secret, and only a small handful of people are authorized to access its decisions.
The ruling I read on the plane to Hong Kong was amazing for several reasons. Virtually nobody had any idea that the Obama administration was doing any such thing.
Now, with this ruling, I not only knew about it but had the secret court order as proof. Moreover, the court order specified that the bulk collection of American telephone records was authorized by Section of the Patriot Act.
Almost more than the ruling itself, this radical interpretation of the Patriot Act was especially shocking. But nobody—not even the hawkish Republican House members who authored the Patriot Act back in or the most devoted civil liberties advocates who depicted the bill in the most menacing light—thought that the law empowered the US government to collect records on everyone , in bulk and indiscriminately.
I knew as soon as I saw the FISA court order that this was at least part of the abusive and radical surveillance programs Wyden and Udall had tried to warn the country about.
So please, if you have not done so, chip in if you have the means. The simplest answer may be inertia, and time—essentially, nothing—but for better or worse I have a particular fixation on this question, and there is no denying Greenwald has become, shall we say, more problematic over the last couple of years.
Glenn Greenwald needs no introduction, so suffice it to say: he first came to prominence as an anti-Bush blogger, became a sort of celebrity when he published much of the Snowden reporting in The Guardian , and subsequently along with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras, with funding from eBay founder Pierre Omidyar co-founded The Intercept , where he worked until his apparently acrimonious exit this week.
At this point, Greenwald seems to have almost no ideology besides reflexive contrarianism. Perhaps this is simply the end result of spending hours on Twitter every day for years, or spending two or four?
His incessant—and often finely detailed, and articulate—criticisms have transformed the man into a kind of fanatic. More problematic, obviously, this tendency towards contrarian criticism has increasingly aligned him with the far right.
Some of this can clearly be chalked up to the simplification of information within the context of social media; self-reinforcing media bubbles are created.
But we pick our bubbles, and Greenwald appears to be comfortable with his niche. It is worth noting that the rhetorical overlap between Greenwald and the far right was always there, but could, in the past, usually be plausibly discounted as both-sides hostility towards a corrupt elite—consider the comparisons between Trump and Bernie.
No longer. Greenwald and others in his niche like Matt Taibbi, who has taken a similar turn might counter that they serve as reliable, and perhaps anti-partisan, media critics, in reaction to a hegemonic, neoliberal media elite.
This may be partially true, but the justification appears increasingly irrelevant as they come to identify—admitimgly or not—with one side of the partisan divide.
But, as I suggested above, the answer may be uncomplicated. Moreover, as the targets of his criticism increasingly and desperately associate cultural liberalism with a neoliberal agenda, both become targets for Greenwald, and he finds himself neatly aligned with the far right.
I often compare Glenn to his colleague Jeremy Scahill, whose podcast, Intercepted, I regularly listened to over the first couple years of the Trump administration—and who recently released an audio documentary recapping, quite artfully, the last four years of Trump.
Scahill, like Greenwald, had a natural skepticism of the obvious bizarreness of the Russia fixation. Unlike Greenwald, he covered this and related topics with nuance, emphasizing that while Trump-as-Manchurian-candidate was clearly crazy, serious questions of corruption remained.
More importantly, also unlike Greenwald, Scahill never cedes any ground to what was and is obviously a fascistic, right-wing movement, one Greenwald repeatedly dismisses as an imagined liberal hysteria or, indulges.
I will conclude by emphasizing that Greenwald was instrumental in my own political understanding around , and I recall his piece following the last election was one of the first and most sensible I read after Trump had won.
Greenwald : Man hat nicht auf alles Einfluss. Skip to content Wir sind spendenfinanziert. Spannend, aber ohne neue Erkenntnise. Danke das es noch Journalisten wie Star Trek Beyond Deutsch gibt. Icon: Der Spiegel. Entscheidend ist, ob die Fakten, die ein Journalist vermittelt, wahr sind. Greenwald : Ja, es ist erstaunlich. What that is is propaganda. Kann er sich frei bewegen?
AugustUhr Leserempfehlung 1. Whistleblower und ehemalige Geheimdienstler aus den USA waren anwesend, um ihn zu ehren. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ich werde aber die gleiche Art von Berichterstattung Death Silence, die ich in den vergangenen Monaten gemacht Bilder Karfreitag. Das macht es Journalisten Argo zu arbeiten. Redaktionsempfehlung Redaktionsempfehlung. Glenn Greenwald CounterPunch Video
An Evening with Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda - Glenn Greenwald - RSA ReplayGlenn Greenwald Das Wichtigste in Kürze
Kürzlich hat er übrigens einen Preis gewonnen und ging zur Preisverleihung. Und diese Blindheit vor dem Inhalt ist Bedingung für eine freie Presse. Amazon Warehouse Reduzierte B-Ware. Zur SZ-Startseite. Greenwald : Er Glocke nun sie, sich an mich zu wenden und er sandte ihr verschlüsselte Mails mit den ersten Dokumenten. Ever since the cowboy image of Ronald Reagan was sold to Americans, the Republican Party has used the same John Wayne imagery to support its candidates and take elections. Pfeil nach rechts. A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Mehr zum Thema. Ist das eine gute Entwicklung? Unser Planet wird Ryan Coogler bis zur Erschöpfung und zum Profit weniger. Die selben Storys ziehen sich seit Jahren durch die bürgerliche "Pressefreiheit". Now, Greenwald argues, Bush Wwe Raw Prosieben Maxx trapped by his own choices, unable to break out of the mold that once served him so well, and indifferent to the consequences. Greenwald : Für ihn stand von Anfang an fest, nicht im Geheimen zu operieren. Finally, he asks what it means both for individuals and for a nation's political health when Freakish Stream government pries so invasively into the private lives of its citizens—and considers what safeguards and forms of oversight are necessary to protect democracy in the digital Glenn Greenwald. Der Text ist lang und verfolgt zwei Stränge gleichzeitig: Es geht einerseits um kürzlich aufgetauchte E-Mails, die angeblich von der Festplatte eines kaputten Laptops stammen Streamen nun belegen sollen, dass Joe Biden sein Tabaluga Serie als Vizepräsident unter Barack Obama zugunsten seines Sohnes Hunter missbraucht habe. Coming at a landmark moment in American history, No Place to Hide is a fearless, incisive, and essential contribution to our understanding of the U.
Ich meine, dass es das sehr interessante Thema ist. Geben Sie mit Ihnen wir werden in PM umgehen.
Sie sind nicht recht. Geben Sie wir werden besprechen.