. Because you are incorrect.

Links...background? Backstory? Hints? Synopsis...?

Oh shit...you're talking about THIS, aren't you?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33125068

If this is accurate, he'd better work real hard on getting proficient in Russian, because he's not leaving unless he's visiting North Korea.

TYY

Just a guess…

Good one!

He's a spy who transferred secrets to a foreign power.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33125068

So, he either failed to safeguard it, or he gave it to them.

Neither is a good look.

That's not a very civil way to conduct yourself.

instead of addressing what people who disagree with you say. Then you complain about uncivil behavior when people get frustrated. That is not a very civil way to conduct yourself.

You said that if the report you linked to is true, then Snowden is a spy. I pointed out that even if the report is true, that doesn't show that he is a spy. He is a spy only if he deliberately gave them the information, and whether he did that would remain an open question even if the report is true. Why are you incapable of admitting that I am correct on that point?

And if "senior government sources confirmed that China had also cracked the encrypted documents," doesn't that suggest that Snowden is not a spy? Why would they have to "crack" his encrypted files if he was spying for them?

That's what caused you to make that unnecessary personal comment. Don't blame me for your attitude--you're in control of that, not me.

You give me YOUR interpretation of what Snowden did, and I respond with MINE.

You're upset that I refuse to give YOUR interpretation more credence than my own, because my interpretation takes into consideration a previous trip to Hong Kong that he made from Japan (the Russians have agents in both places, and they don't sit on their hands), the fact that he went to ground quickly, the view that he may not have been actually staying at the MIRA at all, but instead was a guest of the Russian Consulate from the SECOND he landed at Chek Lap Kok, and that "interview" with the Chinese "journalist" may well have been an opportunity to transfer material to enable him to go on his merry way and somehow cause the Chinese customs and immigration authorities to let him go on a "technicality," (Ewwwww....the middle initial was wrong, so we ignored your request for a hold, USA... how silly of us!) so that he could ultimately carry out the deal that he made with Vladimir's pals.

You don't have to spy "for" someone to sell material to the highest bidder. It's entirely possible--in fact, it is LIKELY--that Snowden, the former ball-shooting patriot, knew that his ten year security review would reveal him to be a massive, no diploma/no degree fraud in the education department (a lie not easily forgiven--you get FIRED for that kind of thing) and he'd be out on his ass without a clearance and no hope for any job more significant than working as the junior associate at the Best Buy Help Desk, after years of living large and having more money than he knew what to do with. The "indoor cat" made the best deal he could manage.

It wasn't as good as he wanted, but he was so obtuse that he thought we were still in an adversarial relationship with Iceland and he could hide out there, and then he thought that he could have a soft landing in South America, but alas, those guys like selling us their fruit and flowers and petroleum products more than they care for Edward....for such a supposedly smart guy, he would have done well to have a look at the trade statistics in recent years. It's not impossible to speculate that he may have gotten much of his world view from Paulbot forums, because it sure seemed that he was looking at the world through Kook-Libertarian lenses.

It is likely that Snowden overstated the robustness of the encryption on the documents he transferred. Was this dumb naivete, or supreme overconfidence...or something else? Time will sort that out, too. The Chinese are not pikers at this game, neither are the Russians. They've militarized their "NSA"--none of these wild and crazy creative punks listening in on sexy calls and giggling over naked phone pictures; they put their hackers in uniform, subject them to military rules and regulations, pay them well and promote them, but they keep a big thumb on them. Because we don't have a draft, we don't do that, and can't.

That said, if anyone had done a proper vetting of Snowden's SF86 when he first hit the intelligence community, he NEVER would have been in a position to steal all that shit. Our security apparatus is as much to blame as anyone else--it's got horrible holes in it, and vetting was a big problem in his case. The question remains, will we get fooled again, or have we learned our lesson? That's a "time will tell" query, too.

and, with all due respect, smears don't merit a polite response.

You changed the subject from Snowden's Latest, to .... ME.

And I noticed. So, whatever!

I really want to know the end of this story. It's like one of those TV shows you get into and then they make you wait a year or two for the next season.

From the article:

I don't think this is entirely a pre-emptive process, though. Time will tell!

It is too bad that he has ended up in the lap of one of the most criminal, lying fucks alive, Putin.

Because at this point there is no real positive way to look at any of this.

The simple fact is our government and all of them fuck over their citizens, lie to them, spy on them, etc.

We are all victims and to some extent I suspect that may even include Snowden.

In it, the journalist was saying he only wrote what he was told to write by the government.

It provides only unsupported allegations by anonymous sources. Who are not exactly disinterested parties.

The issue of concern is how the material was transferred. Did he give it, allow it to be copied, or did they sneak and copy it while he slept? He was ostensibly IN the Russian consulate in Hong Kong, staying there after he departed the MIRA Hotel and before he flew to Moscow.

I don't think there are ANY "disinterested parties" in this saga. Anyone with an interest in the case is by definition the opposite of "disinterested!"

provide some documentation, as a member, actually Chair of the Congressional Intel Committee you would have thought he had something to back it up with.

Instead, we haven't seen much of him since, he has announced he will not be running again for office.

And the whole made up story was totally debunked.

But they WILL keep trying.

See the latest on the 'reporter' who wrote about Snowden now admitting he doesn't have a clue 'what's true or not' but he was 'just printing what the UK Government told him to publish.

This is all so funny to watch.

You'd think when a false story was debunked over a year ago, they would at least try something new.

They are livid that they were outed for violating the law. Their citizens like ours are not just angry they are outraged, and HAVE been for a long time, LONG BEFORE SNOWDEN.

I am more amazed to see anyone on THIS forum where former Whistle Blowers, Binney, Drake, Tice eg, were lauded as HEROES when they blew the whistle on the SAME VIOLATIONS of our Constitution, actually now siding with these Bush policies which were condemned pretty universally by Democrats back during the Bush era.

...of damage done by the revelations.

Most people in our country who value the revelations and are appreciative of the response in government and our Congress to pull back on the intrusive practices of our intelligence organizations will still regard Snowden's efforts as a valuable contribution to our democracy.

The article quotes some unnamed source saying it was a 'huge setback' which was 'harming Britain,' yet, also quotes the same source saying there was "no evidence" any (agents) had been harmed.'

from the article:

It comes two days after the UK's terrorism watchdog David Anderson QC published a review into terrorism legislation, which was set up amid public concerns about surveillance sparked by Mr Snowden's revelations.

He said the country needed clear new laws about the powers of security services to monitor online activity and concluded that the current situation was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable".

******* "whistleblower".

He's a hacker, a thief, a runner, a leaker, a hider, and a liar.

"Funny, Snowden despised leakers & those who put spies' lives at risk until *this* President was elected."



http://theobamadiary.com/2015/06/13/a-tweet-or-two-299/

From Twitter..

"Didn't Snowden say China/Russia didn't get any files? Someone has some re-affirming to do .."

The Daily Beast
"Report: Russia, China Crack Snowden Docs

MI6 agents pulled out of operations."

https://twitter.com/MichaelKelleyBI/status/609853231494266880

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609868934658019328

“There’s a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents" -- Ed #Snowden, NYT, 17 Oct 2013
https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609869236727627777

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609868513730260992

https://twitter.com/20committee/status/609865311735672833

https://twitter.com/hdevreij/status/609854116240748544

Blue_Tires http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1117409

Thank you!

you know, the kind who snaps and takes radical actions after he finds out that a crucial article of faith was always a lie

So you claiming that you always knew Snowden was a liar really doesn't count for much of anything.

Where every move is monitored by your concerned corporate government, every corporate sanctioned meme patrolled by the quislings among us.

This is so tired.

it gives a clearer picture of the recent blaming of attacks is about & coming back to asking we need more freedoms to eavesdrop is about. The other hack has more info but no proof of who is behind it. This one is very puzzling. How do they know his files were hacked and by who? Snowden would have an understanding of technical issues as well as anyone so whatever encryption he was using but how exactly did they gain access as a result. How exactly? Russia is more possible "as a result" but he wasn't in Hong Kong long in an apartment clearly not inviting a parade of people til he later came in contact with a diplomat but there was really no precedent to deal with the asylum claim so he fled Hong Kong. As a result? They weren't interested in being involved with the dispute with the US and no country really (his first choices were Western Europe spots) did except Russia was willing to take the heat but a dispute with the US is what China is getting whether it is over something probably fictional.

on the inside who tipped UK off that they'd cracked the code as they frantically asked for asylum. By "MIDWAY WATER trick" I mean this event in history:

_{Allied code-breaking
Admiral Nimitz had one priceless advantage: cryptanalysts had partially broken the Japanese Navy's JN-25b code.[45] Since the early spring of 1942, the US had been decoding messages stating that there would soon be an operation at objective "AF". It was not known where "AF" was, but Commander Joseph J. Rochefort and his team at Station HYPO were able to confirm that it was Midway; Captain Wilfred Holmes devised a ruse of telling the base at Midway (by secure undersea cable) to broadcast an uncoded radio message stating that Midway's water purification system had broken down.[46] Within 24 hours, the code breakers picked up a Japanese message that "AF was short on water."[47] HYPO was also able to determine the date of the attack as either 4 or 5 June, and to provide Nimitz with a complete IJN order of battle.[48] Japan had a new codebook, but its introduction had been delayed, enabling HYPO to read messages for several crucial days; the new code, which had not yet been cracked, came into use shortly before the attack began, but the important breaks had already been made.[49][nb 8]
As a result, the Americans entered the battle with a very good picture of where, when, and in what strength the Japanese would appear. Nimitz knew that the Japanese had negated their numerical advantage by dividing their ships into four separate task groups, all too widely separated to be able to support each other.[50][nb 9] Nimitz calculated that the aircraft on his three carriers, plus those on Midway Island, gave the U.S. rough parity with Yamamoto's four carriers, mainly because American carrier air groups were larger than Japanese ones. The Japanese, by contrast, remained almost totally unaware of their opponent's true strength and dispositions even after the battle began.[27]}

Unless that is part of your speculation?

Citizen 4 shows him meeting a Chinese diplomat, a male, at the hotel room. Mentioned he wasn't aware of a precedent that applied but told him how the process went. The diplomat said something about what way to travel, said probably a taxi to get there faster. Didn't see anything after leaving the hotel. I do know US filed an extradition claim which was "under review" than turned down said it didn't "comply with Hong Kong law".

--

Hong Kong was a British colony until it was returned to China in 1997. Under what is known as the “Basic Law” – the territory's mini-constitution – it has a well-respected and autonomous legal system based on British common law, with far stronger protections for human rights and freedom of expression than exists on the mainland.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19098016-us-disappointed-that-hong-kong-let-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-leave?lite

something that is a MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD:

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259335/exclusive-whistle-blower-edward-snowden-talks-south-china-morning?page=all

FWIW, the SCMP was purchased from Rupert Murdoch (he sold out when his marriage to Wendy hit the skids) by a super rich guy with a Very Pro-Beijing mindset. Take from that what you might.

As for all those spontaneous (cough) "Save Snowden" (cough) posters that popped up like magic mushrooms around Hong Kong...I'll bet if you traced back to find out who paid the advertising invoices for those things, there'd be a tovarich at the other end of the checkbook, helped by an Enemy-of-my-Enemy good buddy outta Beijing, perhaps.



As for Hong Kong v. China--did you ever pop your head in and have a look-see about how well those protests the Hong Kong youth were carrying out against the mainland regime went? Here's a hint--they didn't go too well (for them, anyway). And things aren't getting any better for the pro-democracy forces out that way, either:

http://europe.newsweek.com/hong-kong-seize-explosives-ahead-key-political-reform-vote-328745

You're going to need more than a BBC article and a statement from a Government official.

he's naive and shockingly ignorant about anything but technology, yet thinks he's smarter than everybody else. Can't watch him 'splain to us .... whatever. It's like a little kid running away from home. I don't think it's necessary to punish him. Let him come back to the U.S. on the condition he learns some damn history and actually reads Orwell.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

I haven't read it but am familiar with it but you do realize this is about the most dubious hack claim I ever came across and I came across very dubious ones from a government official anonymously now less. Government officials saying he put lives at risk is what you'd expect them to say. I'm still thrown off by Orwell, what do you mean? He should have let Big Brother continue to be Big Brother or not show the rest of the public what they are really about.

Snowden said in his 2013 Christmas message that the surveillance in "1984" was "nothing to what we have available today." No. If you take a walk in a field your conversation will not be recorded by microphones in the grass as it was in the novel. Snowden said something about "sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go" -- then wear clothing without pockets -- problem solved. He also said something about "recording people's thoughts." No. Amazon tells me about other books I may be interested in and THEY ARE ALWAYS WRONG. I'm thinking something right now. I wonder if anyone can read my brains. I certainly will not be schooled by Mr. Down and Out in Hong Kong and Moscow.

for last night or so that said an unnamed British government official said Snowden's encypted files and knows who did it that if anyone knows more than a little bit about hacks is attributing is very difficult if they are professionals. How would they know who did the hack?

I went to look for what Snowden said because you lost me "recording people's thoughts" but don't see it at this source -- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/edward-snowden-nsa-spying-worse-orwell-nineteen-eighty-four-article-1.1558183

The censor in your pocket is your phone. Smart phone can track you and record you, the earlier ones ridiculously easy to hack. I remember Gilbert police payed well over over 100,000 (I may be overestimating but it was a big number) for one of those Sting Ray things to get into people's smart phones.

Do you think we now view the privacy-security trade-off differently than we did in 1998?
Something that Orwell never figured out in 1984 is that people would embrace the idea of Big Brother if there’s a game attached to it, or if it’s convenient. You buy a monitor at Best Buy that has a little camera inside that allows you to make Skype calls, and you don’t realize what else is behind that camera. As long as you can present that kind of technology with a fun app, it’s no longer the omnipotent HAL with a red glowing eye—it’s a little black dot at the top of your computer that allows you to talk to your friends all over the world. But that comes at a price. You as an individual have to make a choice: Do you want to use this technology and what comes with it, or do you want to move out to a cabin in the woods and start growing vegetables?

http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/enemy-of-the-state-2013-7/

It wasn't a book that was read in school as I hear that was common, heard of "1984", Orwell, Orwellian a lot. Looked at the general premise, haven't got around to checking out the book.

Just like Greenwald, he leaves that part of the topic alone in the hopes that everyone will assume the worst.

As for 'reading people's thoughts', Snowden claimed that the NSA can do this by monitoring your keyboard presses. Again, however, he never addresses whether this type of surveillance is used against legitimate targets because he wants us to assume the worst.

In the end, American spying is very advanced, as it should be if one assumes we need spies. But there is no evidence that the NSA has ever spied on American citizens. (Other than that Love-Int scandal, which is something that happens with every large organization.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

something like you cant "Intentionally" spy on American citizens or "51% confident of foreignness".

I typed your keywords and this

XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'
• XKeyscore gives 'widest-reaching' collection of online data
• NSA analysts require no prior authorization for searches
• Sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history
• NSA's XKeyscore program – read one of the presentations



A top secret National Security Agency program allows analysts to search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals, according to documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The NSA boasts in training materials that the program, called XKeyscore, is its "widest-reaching" system for developing intelligence from the internet.

The latest revelations will add to the intense public and congressional debate around the extent of NSA surveillance programs. They come as senior intelligence officials testify to the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, releasing classified documents in response to the Guardian's earlier stories on bulk collection of phone records and Fisa surveillance court oversight.

The files shed light on one of Snowden's most controversial statements, made in his first video interview published by the Guardian on June 10.

"I, sitting at my desk," said Snowden, could "wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email".

US officials vehemently denied this specific claim. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, said of Snowden's assertion: "He's lying. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

But training materials for XKeyscore detail how analysts can use it and other systems to mine enormous agency databases by filling in a simple on-screen form giving only a broad justification for the search. The request is not reviewed by a court or any NSA personnel before it is processed.

XKeyscore, the documents boast, is the NSA's "widest reaching" system developing intelligence from computer networks – what the agency calls Digital Network Intelligence (DNI). One presentation claims the program covers "nearly everything a typical user does on the internet", including the content of emails, websites visited and searches, as well as their metadata.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

With court rulings saying it is illegal why does it matter? Cops can't walk freely through front doors (or not allowed to anyway) whenever but I need spies so I can find out what's going on. I'll only look at stuff that the government is keeping from me or I'll look when I'm 51% confident your holding stuff being kept from me. I just want to know what is going on so I won't have to assume the worst or otherwise. I'll know.

Again, the question is never even posed because an article like this gets much more attention if readers willingly assume the worst.

Court rulings have only said that the Patriot Act did not authorize the metadata collection. Because of this, the government will now have a 'rapid-search' process put into place at every telecom in the country. Which is exactly the same thing as before!

This is the Information Age. I have posed this question time and again: if you have a warrant to search someone's email, how do you NOT see emails from American citizens that may also be part of that email collection? The answer, of course, is that you can't.

It's like listening to only one side of a wiretapped phone conversation. You don't have authorization to listen to the innocent party but you do because you can't 'unhear' what is being said.

With data being stored in massive systems, you can't simply target one person's communications. You will inevitably collect some non-target communications in the process. You cannot get around this.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

its basically an open door though even if they have to get a warrant everything is still an open door for NSA I'm sure they can go into and back out but we're talking about humans here. Why with the 51% confident for foreignness? Like what kind of guidelines when they aren't looking at sex pics before doing the mining? The NSA can dig to see if you're an American in-case they aren't sure but if they find something like "evidence of a crime" they can keep it.

----
"In the absence of specific information regarding whether a target is a United States person," it states "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States or whose location is not known will be presumed to be a non-United States person unless such person can be positively identified as a United States person."

If it later appears that a target is in fact located in the US, analysts are permitted to look at the content of messages, or listen to phone calls, to establish if this is indeed the case.

Referring to steps taken to prevent intentional collection of telephone content of those inside the US, the document states: "NSA analysts may analyze content for indications that a foreign target has entered or intends to enter the United States. Such content analysis will be conducted according to analytic and intelligence requirements and priorities."

http://theweek.com/articles/461404/nsa-wiretap-phone

Not sure what goes on with e-mail warrant as if there is a pertinent, non-pertinent kind of thing of if warrants specify targets or allow the whole view depending on the reason for the warrant but if you happen to say the wrong early into a phone call to someone who has a wiretap that can be used on either party but generally it has to be related to what the police are investigating. Not sure the kind warrants they allow there but that is why the EFF is there to guide them through the process.

Is there any evidence that the NSA is abusing this authority? If there was, why didn't Snowden release it? You'll recall, the very first thing he and Greenwald went to was PRISM, which they misunderstood as some sort of 'Internet vacuum cleaner'. And their 'evidence' was based on an amorphous, corporate-like PowerPoint slide!

That was what they thought was most important and they were wrong about it. It was only later that Snowden brought up the metadata program. And later still that he claimed he had 'gone through channels'. So much later, in fact, that it should be clear to anyone that he was making that bit up about going through channels in order to make us believe he had no choice but to steal and run.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

"A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They'll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves and unrecorded unanalyzed thoughts." "Conception"? Yes, there will be a child if that happens. Who is recording and analyzing thoughts? Do people really think the U.S. or the UK are like North Korea or dictatorships where people disappear in the night because a neighbor reports them to the state for anti-government snark?

Yes, duh, I know the censor in your pocket is your phone, but one is not required to have a phone at all times. All of this technology is a habit. It's not necessary. If people are so freaked out, then stop it. People got along fine without it in the past.

And yes, we must cultivate our garden.

The odds are that no one is listening to your conversation with your friends around the table, but those odds change if the people at adjoining tables hear words or phrases like "murder my wife," or "incredibly malformed penis" or "put a bomb under his Escalade" or other "WTF did that so-and-so say?" type phrase.

I only recently got an Android phone, and the only reason I got one is because my old, text-n-talk-n-take-a-pic phone finally died after a half decade or more of reliable service. I don't have all my devices "interconnected," and I won't be reading my primary email on that thing, because if I lose it I don't want to have to worry about giving someone yet another way to hack into my (not very important) shit! It is a cool thing to use while waiting around for a family member at the doctor, or dentist or whatever (I do a lot of family taxi driving lately) because I can read the paper or watch a YOUTUBE on it. It's like a bit of entertainment in your pocket, and that's certainly fun!

There are rumors that the actor who plays hard-bitten journalist Glenn Greenwald may be replaced.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

It is like a NETFLIX winner--we all do a bit of binge-watching/discussing when the latest season is released! Some people just love the series for its twists and turns, while others identify anxiously and aggressively with some of the main characters, and refuse to hear any disparagement of the ones they adore!

That post of yours has so much 'win' in it that it's outta the park!

If the whole corrupt spook network gets burned that is a good thing that at this point might be the only way to slow it's roll.

Bust out every operative, asset, dollar chain, technique, and method.

I can't even make myself read the drivel this crowd cranks out anymore. It's lost it's entertainment value.

SPSSDD

LOL

eom

Julian Assange, Go ahead .

We knew the NSA could potentially spy on US Citizens decades ago.

A little flick called 'Sneakers' explored the concept in 1992. The concept entered into pop culture all of those years ago.

But the one thing there is no dispute over is that Snowden is a traitor that will eventually be punished for his crimes. He stole American national security secrets and then ran to Americas enemies.

no, first he ran then he dumped and hid out in Russia.

Thank you, Tarheel.

completely throw out the meaning of that word, then I'm gonna have to go with traitor.

isn't afraid of him like so many in the media.

There are holes big enough in the lies the NSA has been telling the American public for years now to park an Airbus A-350 on the lie tarmac and still have room for an Antonov and a C-5 in between the lies Obama has told us about this.

Obviously the public never heard the full story. But congratulations on suspecting that.

And go ahead, take a bow, pat yourself on the back, and spit-shine your medals.

Sid

Thanks for your contribution. It's almost like you never went away.

Something to be really proud of. But hey, who's pissed?

We're pool side. Beautiful day. I came into get a glass of wine.

Sorta pitiful getting lathered up about "pissing" people off on the internets.

I'm sure he is justly proud.

Just so utterly yuck. I wish there was a (shudder) smilie.

You bet!

Do you prefer it?

In any case, he doesn't piss me off but shows how gullible he is when a government official says something. He does appear to be pissed off at the right people though.

Did you guess he was a super spy or a patriotic whistle blower? I'm so confused.

You're welcome.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

....for the giggles.

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

He was there a month, quite a long time. What was he doing at the Russian embassy, as has been reported?

What price was extracted to not be extradicted back to the US by the Chinese?

What price was extracted for asylum in Russia?

There seems to be some realpolitik operating here among all three parties — Snowden,Greenwald,Poitras, the Chinese and the Russians — and not some altruistic mission of doing the "right thing for the American people" as some love to paint it.

Were the files ever out of Snowden's or Greenwald's or Poitras' hands?

Something is shady. Too many unanswered questions to just naively accept the "great, innocent, patriot hero" portrayal of Snowden that so many, even on this board, have succumbed to.

Snowden should have stuck with just releasing domestic spying revelations instead of getting in over his head with all the revelations on covert international operations — but I guess he couldn't help it since he took so many files (hundreds of thousands), the poor soul just didn't have time to read them all.