This is the power of an informed public.
June 4, 2015 10:14 PM Subscribe
Edward Snowden believes there is reason to be hopeful about mass surveillance (SLNYT).
Though we have come a long way, the right to privacy — the foundation of the freedoms enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights — remains under threat.
The NSA’s domestic phone records program is dead for now. But the government has many ways to get phone data. [WaPo]
The NSA’s domestic phone records program is dead for now. But the government has many ways to get phone data. [WaPo]
The FBI could also use an investigative tool known as a National Security Letter, or NSL, to get the phone numbers a suspect has dialed from phone companies, for instance. And there's a provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that allows the government to get a court order for information from communications companies like Internet service providers about their customers that would cover the sort of data the government currently gets under Section 215.A Gap in Surveillance, but Ways Around It [NYT]
All three of the expired laws contained a so-called grandfather clause that permits their authority to continue indefinitely for any investigation that had begun before June 1.posted by Little Dawn at 10:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hush. His name is Eric. Eric Snowden. Whom we all hope is brought to justice. Please report any possible sightings of Eric Snowden to your local law enforcement officials thank you.
(this snark was brought to you, ironically, by The Guardian.)
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
(this snark was brought to you, ironically, by The Guardian.)
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:11 PM on June 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
Ah, the Eric/Edward glitch in the matrix. Interesting divide, that.
posted by chainlinkspiral at 11:14 PM on June 4, 2015
posted by chainlinkspiral at 11:14 PM on June 4, 2015
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt. He'll die a lonely old man, and apart from Jeopardy champions, no one's going to remember him.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:24 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:24 PM on June 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
And which Jeopardy champs will recall Cool Papa Bell, one wonders.
posted by notyou at 11:30 PM on June 4, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by notyou at 11:30 PM on June 4, 2015 [31 favorites]
Nobel. F'ing. Prize.
Kinda like how Obama got the Peace Prize? Real meaningful, that one.
posted by Nevin at 11:54 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Kinda like how Obama got the Peace Prize? Real meaningful, that one.
posted by Nevin at 11:54 PM on June 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen, but it is only the latest product of a change in global awareness.
"Officially" ending the mass surveillance is not the same thing as making it go away. With the infrastructure already in place do you really think that the government is just gonna turn it off and never be tempted to have a peek now and then? They're just gonna go dark. The Congress having passed this law can now look away - there will be no oversight at all - and business will go on as usual.
No FBI or NSA officlal will ever be prosecuted for violating this law. No evidence that would have ever made its way into a court of law will be tainted, because this "classified" evidence is never used in criminal prosecutions anyway.
Snowden's one big accomplishment so far has been in exposing the outright perjury of James Clapper. There are laws against perjury and an activist, out-spoken Democrat president in the White House, but has James Clapper been indicted for perjury yet? No. You don't go to jail if no one prosecutes you and so long as that discretion exists - which it obviously does - these laws are meaningless.
posted by three blind mice at 11:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [10 favorites]
"Officially" ending the mass surveillance is not the same thing as making it go away. With the infrastructure already in place do you really think that the government is just gonna turn it off and never be tempted to have a peek now and then? They're just gonna go dark. The Congress having passed this law can now look away - there will be no oversight at all - and business will go on as usual.
No FBI or NSA officlal will ever be prosecuted for violating this law. No evidence that would have ever made its way into a court of law will be tainted, because this "classified" evidence is never used in criminal prosecutions anyway.
Snowden's one big accomplishment so far has been in exposing the outright perjury of James Clapper. There are laws against perjury and an activist, out-spoken Democrat president in the White House, but has James Clapper been indicted for perjury yet? No. You don't go to jail if no one prosecutes you and so long as that discretion exists - which it obviously does - these laws are meaningless.
posted by three blind mice at 11:55 PM on June 4, 2015 [10 favorites]
And which Jeopardy champs will recall Cool Papa Bell, one wonders.
If not being remembered by Jeopardy champions is the price I have to pay to not die in prison and/or Russia, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Perhaps Cool Papa Bell is willing too.
posted by sideshow at 12:07 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
If not being remembered by Jeopardy champions is the price I have to pay to not die in prison and/or Russia, then that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. Perhaps Cool Papa Bell is willing too.
posted by sideshow at 12:07 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt.
He's a bit self-aggrandizing, perhaps, but a dolt? You don't get to the position he was in unless you're razor sharp.
I don't know if I could have done his job. On the one hand his known forum postings prior to his classified work were not impressive, and I pulled a few epic hacks (one or two reached the level of getting writeups on pentesting sites) back around that time. On the other hand there's a million people far better than I ever was that I know applied to the NSA and failed, and he got in.
I do know that if I were in his position in the NSA there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would have had the courage to do what he did. He was staring the American military-industrial complex's naked disregard for rule of law and the Constitution in the face, daily, and Did Something About It(tm) despite knowing full-well that same naked disregard for rule of law would probably factor into their response to his actions.
Nobody in the position to make that decision is unaware of the risks which is a big part of why it's so rare. To ignore that and just do it anyways straddles the line between crazy-brave and actually making a real no-shit sacrifice for principles to which pretty much all of us just pay lip-service.
Very few people have the intelligence to achieve his former station. Of those that do, next to none are willing to place their conscience before their creature comforts like he did. I don't know what your definition of "hero" reads like, but that's damned close to mine.
posted by Ryvar at 12:27 AM on June 5, 2015 [74 favorites]
He's a bit self-aggrandizing, perhaps, but a dolt? You don't get to the position he was in unless you're razor sharp.
I don't know if I could have done his job. On the one hand his known forum postings prior to his classified work were not impressive, and I pulled a few epic hacks (one or two reached the level of getting writeups on pentesting sites) back around that time. On the other hand there's a million people far better than I ever was that I know applied to the NSA and failed, and he got in.
I do know that if I were in his position in the NSA there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would have had the courage to do what he did. He was staring the American military-industrial complex's naked disregard for rule of law and the Constitution in the face, daily, and Did Something About It(tm) despite knowing full-well that same naked disregard for rule of law would probably factor into their response to his actions.
Nobody in the position to make that decision is unaware of the risks which is a big part of why it's so rare. To ignore that and just do it anyways straddles the line between crazy-brave and actually making a real no-shit sacrifice for principles to which pretty much all of us just pay lip-service.
Very few people have the intelligence to achieve his former station. Of those that do, next to none are willing to place their conscience before their creature comforts like he did. I don't know what your definition of "hero" reads like, but that's damned close to mine.
posted by Ryvar at 12:27 AM on June 5, 2015 [74 favorites]
Yes, throwing away your sweet life in Hawaii and well-paying career for your convictions about privacy and freedom is being a self-aggrandizing dolt.
We need more of those kind of dolts.
posted by benzenedream at 12:49 AM on June 5, 2015 [57 favorites]
We need more of those kind of dolts.
posted by benzenedream at 12:49 AM on June 5, 2015 [57 favorites]
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt.
and for this thing that's yet to happen he needs to be judged TODAY ppl don't just stand there
posted by jklaiho at 12:54 AM on June 5, 2015 [31 favorites]
and for this thing that's yet to happen he needs to be judged TODAY ppl don't just stand there
posted by jklaiho at 12:54 AM on June 5, 2015 [31 favorites]
"Very few people have the intelligence to achieve his former station. Of those that do..."
In summation, he did it for ideological/ personal reasons. Money is not a driving force like this guy.
An altogether different rationale. But there are many who were brave enough to deny money for service. Snowden is a whistleblower for sure but is he a treasonous spy whose stupity and circumstance led him to flee for his life? I doubt it. He seems to be intelligent enough to know if he leaked this stuff in place, he would get caught. I suppose one can rule out he was spoon fed data to pick and choose as he got a lot of stuff.
Interesting post.
posted by clavdivs at 1:18 AM on June 5, 2015
In summation, he did it for ideological/ personal reasons. Money is not a driving force like this guy.
An altogether different rationale. But there are many who were brave enough to deny money for service. Snowden is a whistleblower for sure but is he a treasonous spy whose stupity and circumstance led him to flee for his life? I doubt it. He seems to be intelligent enough to know if he leaked this stuff in place, he would get caught. I suppose one can rule out he was spoon fed data to pick and choose as he got a lot of stuff.
Interesting post.
posted by clavdivs at 1:18 AM on June 5, 2015
Nobel. F'ing. Prize.
posted by gwint at 10:18 PM on June 4 [9 favorites +] [!]
I'd prefer a Snowden Prize to be established for courage in the defense of liberty.
posted by chavenet at 1:59 AM on June 5, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by gwint at 10:18 PM on June 4 [9 favorites +] [!]
I'd prefer a Snowden Prize to be established for courage in the defense of liberty.
posted by chavenet at 1:59 AM on June 5, 2015 [21 favorites]
James Bamford wrote a good piece on Snowden. The decision each took to expose illegal spying is different yet similar in the need to have this known. If awards are to given, it doesn't sound as hyperbolic at first, Bamford won many.
posted by clavdivs at 3:23 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 3:23 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt. He'll die a lonely old man, and apart from Jeopardy champions, no one's going to remember him.
lol dude, the people who think snowden and greenwald are a corporate libertarian psyop brought to us by pierre omidyar are less mad than you are right now
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 AM on June 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
lol dude, the people who think snowden and greenwald are a corporate libertarian psyop brought to us by pierre omidyar are less mad than you are right now
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 AM on June 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
LEGALIZE HIM.
posted by Etrigan at 5:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 5:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
He'd be a fascinating Republican candidate for President.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:53 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:53 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Officially" ending the mass surveillance is not the same thing as making it go away. With the infrastructure already in place do you really think that the government is just gonna turn it off and never be tempted to have a peek now and then?
One step at a time. Now that it's established it is against the law, we have an official mechanism for actualizing the public will. That is important no matter how you look at it.
posted by JHarris at 5:57 AM on June 5, 2015
One step at a time. Now that it's established it is against the law, we have an official mechanism for actualizing the public will. That is important no matter how you look at it.
posted by JHarris at 5:57 AM on June 5, 2015
BREAKING SNOWDEN CAPTURED, STILL DEFIANT
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:05 AM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:05 AM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
The reference to Eric is unlikely to spring from genuine ignorance, therefore, and may instead have been a temporary slip – or a deliberately casual approach to show his disdain.
I never really thought about the rhetorical power one can wield by intentionally sounding like an idiot that doesn't care about the most fundamental aspects of their job. I'm sure to give my vote to these people that cannot retain basic facts (possibly on purpose).
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:05 AM on June 5, 2015
I never really thought about the rhetorical power one can wield by intentionally sounding like an idiot that doesn't care about the most fundamental aspects of their job. I'm sure to give my vote to these people that cannot retain basic facts (possibly on purpose).
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 6:05 AM on June 5, 2015
Srsly tho, I think he is both a traitor and a whistle-blower. Whether his ends justify his means remains to be seen, but I really really hope he's right that those leaks cause less jerkitude in our government.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fuck that "traitor" noise
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [27 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [27 favorites]
Here are the latest poll results on Snowden that I could find, basically unpopular at home, a hero abroad.
posted by Brian B. at 6:36 AM on June 5, 2015
posted by Brian B. at 6:36 AM on June 5, 2015
Kinda like how Obama got the Peace Prize? Real meaningful, that one.
I think of that one as the Nobel Peace Please Prize.
posted by srboisvert at 6:40 AM on June 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
I think of that one as the Nobel Peace Please Prize.
posted by srboisvert at 6:40 AM on June 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
>Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt.
A fun thing to do is to imagine declarations like this as being dialogue from the villain at the end of a Scooby Doo episode, where the bad guy's in cuffs, in a monster suit with the head off, and everybody's standing around relieved. John Schindler (@20committee) tweets are rich fodder for this game.
"...a self-aggrandizing dolt, and a meddling kid!"
posted by turntraitor at 6:50 AM on June 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
A fun thing to do is to imagine declarations like this as being dialogue from the villain at the end of a Scooby Doo episode, where the bad guy's in cuffs, in a monster suit with the head off, and everybody's standing around relieved. John Schindler (@20committee) tweets are rich fodder for this game.
"...a self-aggrandizing dolt, and a meddling kid!"
posted by turntraitor at 6:50 AM on June 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
Thing about the Nobel Peace Prize though is that it's given out annually, regardless if anyone deserves it. I'm not saying Obama was the best person to get it for 2009, but he was doing his best to regain peace at the time, and his only competitors were from that same year. Just because it's gone to a couple people you don't much like doesn't mean the award's bunk.
posted by brecc at 6:59 AM on June 5, 2015
posted by brecc at 6:59 AM on June 5, 2015
Fuck that "traitor" noise
America doesn't require people to be loyal to the government or society. This sentiment has a long history previous to the constitution. We still read Thoreau in school to understand civil disobedience. We often tell ourselves that poachers and child polygamists are expressing their natural rights, rather than deal with the predators among us. And we generally ignore the casual threat of domestic terrorism from anti-government sympathizers and militias, some who publish best-sellers on how to destroy government centers, for religious reasons, while some are still resisting so-called Northern aggression (Snowden is from NC). However, Snowden made it clear at first that he was holding general information that he would release if any harm should come to him, making himself trustee-at-large of data theft. That information may be personally harmful to many Americans, and it or may may not be safe as he rests with our enemies. Regardless, he implied it was dramatic, and by putting the threat out there, it now has a demand, or a price on it. A complicated fellow to be sure, but not a white knight.
posted by Brian B. at 7:19 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
America doesn't require people to be loyal to the government or society. This sentiment has a long history previous to the constitution. We still read Thoreau in school to understand civil disobedience. We often tell ourselves that poachers and child polygamists are expressing their natural rights, rather than deal with the predators among us. And we generally ignore the casual threat of domestic terrorism from anti-government sympathizers and militias, some who publish best-sellers on how to destroy government centers, for religious reasons, while some are still resisting so-called Northern aggression (Snowden is from NC). However, Snowden made it clear at first that he was holding general information that he would release if any harm should come to him, making himself trustee-at-large of data theft. That information may be personally harmful to many Americans, and it or may may not be safe as he rests with our enemies. Regardless, he implied it was dramatic, and by putting the threat out there, it now has a demand, or a price on it. A complicated fellow to be sure, but not a white knight.
posted by Brian B. at 7:19 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thing about the Nobel Peace Prize though is that it's given out annually, regardless if anyone deserves it.
No Nobel Prize must be awarded. The Nobel Peace Prize in particular has been not awarded 19 times, more than any other Nobel, most notably during the World Wars and most recently in 1972.
I'm not saying Obama was the best person to get it for 2009, but he was doing his best to regain peace at the time, and his only competitors were from that same year.
The Nobel is not the Oscar, with a defined beginning and end date of eligibility (other than that the recipient must be alive when the committee makes its decision, which is widely seen as why there was no Peace Prize awarded in 1948, just after Gandhi had been assassinated). For instance, just three years after Obama was awarded the Peace Prize, it went to the European Union "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe."
Just because it's gone to a couple people you don't much like doesn't mean the award's bunk.
No, but this one was patently aspirational, whether because the committee thought Obama would be better than his predecessor or because they wanted to push him in that direction.
posted by Etrigan at 7:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
No Nobel Prize must be awarded. The Nobel Peace Prize in particular has been not awarded 19 times, more than any other Nobel, most notably during the World Wars and most recently in 1972.
I'm not saying Obama was the best person to get it for 2009, but he was doing his best to regain peace at the time, and his only competitors were from that same year.
The Nobel is not the Oscar, with a defined beginning and end date of eligibility (other than that the recipient must be alive when the committee makes its decision, which is widely seen as why there was no Peace Prize awarded in 1948, just after Gandhi had been assassinated). For instance, just three years after Obama was awarded the Peace Prize, it went to the European Union "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe."
Just because it's gone to a couple people you don't much like doesn't mean the award's bunk.
No, but this one was patently aspirational, whether because the committee thought Obama would be better than his predecessor or because they wanted to push him in that direction.
posted by Etrigan at 7:30 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, the Obama administration was angry about Obama being awarded the prize:
A senior Norwegian diplomat says his country's former ambassador to the United States was given a verbal lashing by Barack Obama's chief of staff when the president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.posted by Sangermaine at 8:25 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Morten Wetland said Thursday the ambassador, Wegger Stroemmen, was approached by Rahm Emanuel, now Chicago's mayor, who accused Norway of "fawning" to the newly elected U.S. leader.
Wetland, the Norwegian ambassador to the United Nations at the time, told The Associated Press he did not witness the dressing down but said there was an air of embarrassment in Washington that Obama had been given the award so early in his presidency.
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt. He'll die a lonely old man, and apart from Jeopardy champions, no one's going to remember him.
Srsly tho, I think he is both a traitor and a whistle-blower.
I still don't understand how people can look at someone like Snowden and then proceed to judge them for some sort of personality ("self-aggrandizing dolt", "not a white knight") as if being a whistleblower or practicing civil disobedience needs to be judged by the standards of reality television shows or celebrity rags. There are larger issues at stake, here.
NSA surveillance and privacy issues are massive questions that strike at the heart of what it means to be a citizen of the USA, how a worldwide tone is set for liberty and privacy.
We have someone who drastically modified their life and put themselves in exile for the rest of their lives -- to provide the rest of the US and the world with a series of crucial revelations.
This information then, through the process of democracy, started creating sentiment that recently resulted in at least one law to curtail the bounds of allowable surveillance.
So here is democracy at work, as flawed as it may currently be. The public gains knowledge, and the democratically elected representatives create laws.
If you wish NSA whistleblowers didn't exist, I can't help but assume that you would rather this process not happen, that certain things need to be swept under the carpet, which is arguably the most anti-democratic and (to use the lingo of jingoism) the most traitorous and "anti-American" issue possible.
posted by suedehead at 9:26 AM on June 5, 2015 [18 favorites]
Srsly tho, I think he is both a traitor and a whistle-blower.
I still don't understand how people can look at someone like Snowden and then proceed to judge them for some sort of personality ("self-aggrandizing dolt", "not a white knight") as if being a whistleblower or practicing civil disobedience needs to be judged by the standards of reality television shows or celebrity rags. There are larger issues at stake, here.
NSA surveillance and privacy issues are massive questions that strike at the heart of what it means to be a citizen of the USA, how a worldwide tone is set for liberty and privacy.
We have someone who drastically modified their life and put themselves in exile for the rest of their lives -- to provide the rest of the US and the world with a series of crucial revelations.
This information then, through the process of democracy, started creating sentiment that recently resulted in at least one law to curtail the bounds of allowable surveillance.
So here is democracy at work, as flawed as it may currently be. The public gains knowledge, and the democratically elected representatives create laws.
If you wish NSA whistleblowers didn't exist, I can't help but assume that you would rather this process not happen, that certain things need to be swept under the carpet, which is arguably the most anti-democratic and (to use the lingo of jingoism) the most traitorous and "anti-American" issue possible.
posted by suedehead at 9:26 AM on June 5, 2015 [18 favorites]
Yeah, it takes a real dolt to give up a high-paying job with excellent perqs, not to mention the very likely risk that you'll spend your life in prison, just to try to do the right thing. Especially when you consider that the odds of anybody ever caring or benefitting from your sacrifice are cosmically biased in favor of the establishment.
What a dolt, indeed.
American congress persons on those oversight committees charged with acting on our behalf should be such dolts (instead of, for example, the spineless sycophants they turned out to be).
Go Edward!
posted by mule98J at 9:31 AM on June 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
What a dolt, indeed.
American congress persons on those oversight committees charged with acting on our behalf should be such dolts (instead of, for example, the spineless sycophants they turned out to be).
Go Edward!
posted by mule98J at 9:31 AM on June 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
A complicated fellow to be sure, but not a white knight.
White knight or not, it's an easy comparison — and decision — to make.
I would rather trust someone like Snowden with sensitive data, given the track record of what he has done with similarly sensitive data, so far. He saw violations of law and acted with less regard for his personal safety; instead, helping to protect our rights to privacy.
Conversely, I would not trust the Obama administration with sensitive data, because they violate people's rights with it to our collective detriment. Obama and his staff have a consistently poor track record with that material.
We keep finding out about abuse after abuse, and instead of addressing the issues, Obama locks up whistleblowers. In fact, he is the worst President in history on that score — somehow a worse President than Bush II.
It's a slam dunk, really.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:39 AM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
White knight or not, it's an easy comparison — and decision — to make.
I would rather trust someone like Snowden with sensitive data, given the track record of what he has done with similarly sensitive data, so far. He saw violations of law and acted with less regard for his personal safety; instead, helping to protect our rights to privacy.
Conversely, I would not trust the Obama administration with sensitive data, because they violate people's rights with it to our collective detriment. Obama and his staff have a consistently poor track record with that material.
We keep finding out about abuse after abuse, and instead of addressing the issues, Obama locks up whistleblowers. In fact, he is the worst President in history on that score — somehow a worse President than Bush II.
It's a slam dunk, really.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:39 AM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
In fact, he is the worst President in history on that score — somehow a worse President than Bush II.
From here on out every administration is going to be the worst in history. Welcome to the declining empire.
posted by clarknova at 9:52 AM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
From here on out every administration is going to be the worst in history. Welcome to the declining empire.
posted by clarknova at 9:52 AM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Fuck that "traitor" noise
He's a traitor. And if you don't trust me, then listen to Bill Binney, the OG, less photogenic, NSA whistleblower.
The first thing Snowden did after his interview to Greenwald and Poitras about domestic surveillance was going to the South China Morning Post and telling them all he knew about how the US government was hacking Chinese targets, which he called "crimes against the PRC". That's treason.
posted by gertzedek at 10:13 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
He's a traitor. And if you don't trust me, then listen to Bill Binney, the OG, less photogenic, NSA whistleblower.
The first thing Snowden did after his interview to Greenwald and Poitras about domestic surveillance was going to the South China Morning Post and telling them all he knew about how the US government was hacking Chinese targets, which he called "crimes against the PRC". That's treason.
posted by gertzedek at 10:13 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Count me among those who consider Edward Snowden to be a self-aggrandizing traitor and hypocrite. He is now a stooge of the Putin regime, which not only has a much more extensive surveillance of Russian citizens, but also has greatly curtailed dissent, going so far as to assassinate critics within Russia and abroad. Do you really think that Putin won't hesitate to have Snowden killed and blame the US in a false flag operation when/if it eventually suits his purposes?
Edward Snowden had other avenues for revealing the information about the extent of surveillance in the US and abroad, such as going to any of several senators (e.g. Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren), that have been critical of US surveillance policy. He could have obtained immunity from prosecution for testifying about abuses, and his testimony might have led to prosecution of NSA officials that lied to congress. Congress would have responded *very* quickly to the perjury of government officials and clamped down on the NSA and other organizations. Relations with our allies could have been maintained while stopping the spying on them.
Rather Edward Snowden chose a course of action that greatly damaged our country, our democracy, and our alliances and allies. By going outside the law and fleeing the US, the congress could not go after those who blatantly lied without appearing to take the side of a traitor. His actions *delayed* the curtailment of surveillance, and even now more could have been learned by testifying to congress, rather than leaking tidbits of information piecemeal to keep attention on himself. Germany in particular hesitated in taking a hard line against Russian aggression in Ukraine because of frayed relations with the US. Lives have been lost thanks to Edward Snowden.
Unlike those who engaged in true civil disobedience, Edward Snowden did not break the law and deliberately take the legal consequences to demonstrate the unjustness of the law, a la lunch counter sit-ins and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat. Those who liken him to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers are also wrong. Daniel Ellsberg did not flee the country; he waited for the legal process to take its course. Edward Snowden took an oath, and then violated it, betraying thousands who took the same oath. Those who serve the country loyally now have much greater difficulty getting security clearances, too.
Many people on this site and elsewhere see Edward Snowden to be a hero. He is not. He is a coward. He basks in the attention paid to him while under the protection of a brutal, authoritarian regime guilty of far worse than any criminality he might revealed. Edward Snowden had other more effective ways to bring illegal surveillance to light. He chose treason, flight, and self promotion instead.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:16 AM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Edward Snowden had other avenues for revealing the information about the extent of surveillance in the US and abroad, such as going to any of several senators (e.g. Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren), that have been critical of US surveillance policy. He could have obtained immunity from prosecution for testifying about abuses, and his testimony might have led to prosecution of NSA officials that lied to congress. Congress would have responded *very* quickly to the perjury of government officials and clamped down on the NSA and other organizations. Relations with our allies could have been maintained while stopping the spying on them.
Rather Edward Snowden chose a course of action that greatly damaged our country, our democracy, and our alliances and allies. By going outside the law and fleeing the US, the congress could not go after those who blatantly lied without appearing to take the side of a traitor. His actions *delayed* the curtailment of surveillance, and even now more could have been learned by testifying to congress, rather than leaking tidbits of information piecemeal to keep attention on himself. Germany in particular hesitated in taking a hard line against Russian aggression in Ukraine because of frayed relations with the US. Lives have been lost thanks to Edward Snowden.
Unlike those who engaged in true civil disobedience, Edward Snowden did not break the law and deliberately take the legal consequences to demonstrate the unjustness of the law, a la lunch counter sit-ins and Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat. Those who liken him to Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers are also wrong. Daniel Ellsberg did not flee the country; he waited for the legal process to take its course. Edward Snowden took an oath, and then violated it, betraying thousands who took the same oath. Those who serve the country loyally now have much greater difficulty getting security clearances, too.
Many people on this site and elsewhere see Edward Snowden to be a hero. He is not. He is a coward. He basks in the attention paid to him while under the protection of a brutal, authoritarian regime guilty of far worse than any criminality he might revealed. Edward Snowden had other more effective ways to bring illegal surveillance to light. He chose treason, flight, and self promotion instead.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:16 AM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or what haiku warrior said. He took calculated actions to maximize the damage he would cause to America, by carefully choosing who he would work with and the countries he would escape to.
posted by gertzedek at 10:20 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by gertzedek at 10:20 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Edward Snowden will be remembered by history as an American hero who changed his country for the better. He fled the country to avoid a prison system that practices literal torture. The people who support that system? They are the people I think of when I think of traitors who damage America.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 AM on June 5, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 AM on June 5, 2015 [19 favorites]
Edward Snowden his country for a country that routinely imprisons, tortures, and assassinates those who dissent while passing laws to abrogate the civil rights of LGBT people among others. Nope--not a hero.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:34 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by haiku warrior at 10:34 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
He basks in the attention paid to him while under the protection of a brutal, authoritarian regime guilty of far worse than any criminality he might revealed.
Edward Snowden his country for a country that routinely imprisons, tortures, and assassinates those who dissent while passing laws to abrogate the civil rights of LGBT people among others. Nope--not a hero.
This is a illogical and lazy critique of Snowden. The point is not to evaluate how good or bad of a country Russia is. The point is that Snowden revealed a great deal of information about the USA's surveillance policies.
The former does not make the latter irrelevant or any less important, and to use that as a point of argument is to be pretty short-sighted ("Oh, he didn't like the US so he went to Russia? Ha!").
All this focus on Snowden's character is like celebrity worship - who cares what kind of person he is! Who cares if he is a coward, or if he kills kittens with his bare hands on Tuesdays, or if he watches Game of Thrones, or if he likes craft beer?
What I care about is that the members of a country (founded on the principles of democracy, and of liberty, equality, and justice, mind you) get to understand that its government organizations are actively in the process of breaking its own constitution, and have a decent say in democratically changing the course of that country.
Lives have been lost thanks to Edward Snowden.
Question for you, haiku warrior and gertzedek. If you could go back in time and easily stop Snowden and all other NSA whistleblowers from making their information public, would you do so? Would you wish this information was hidden for the 'greater good of the country'? In other words, do you believe that undemocratic processes are sometimes necessary to preserve democracy?
posted by suedehead at 10:35 AM on June 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
Edward Snowden his country for a country that routinely imprisons, tortures, and assassinates those who dissent while passing laws to abrogate the civil rights of LGBT people among others. Nope--not a hero.
This is a illogical and lazy critique of Snowden. The point is not to evaluate how good or bad of a country Russia is. The point is that Snowden revealed a great deal of information about the USA's surveillance policies.
The former does not make the latter irrelevant or any less important, and to use that as a point of argument is to be pretty short-sighted ("Oh, he didn't like the US so he went to Russia? Ha!").
All this focus on Snowden's character is like celebrity worship - who cares what kind of person he is! Who cares if he is a coward, or if he kills kittens with his bare hands on Tuesdays, or if he watches Game of Thrones, or if he likes craft beer?
What I care about is that the members of a country (founded on the principles of democracy, and of liberty, equality, and justice, mind you) get to understand that its government organizations are actively in the process of breaking its own constitution, and have a decent say in democratically changing the course of that country.
Lives have been lost thanks to Edward Snowden.
Question for you, haiku warrior and gertzedek. If you could go back in time and easily stop Snowden and all other NSA whistleblowers from making their information public, would you do so? Would you wish this information was hidden for the 'greater good of the country'? In other words, do you believe that undemocratic processes are sometimes necessary to preserve democracy?
posted by suedehead at 10:35 AM on June 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
Regarding whether or not Snowden is a traitor in Bill Binney's eyes and whether he should have used the "proper" channels, like going to the Senate I will quote from the article that gertzedek was so kind to link:
posted by Reverend John at 10:42 AM on June 5, 2015 [19 favorites]
Q: Did Edward Snowden do the right thing in going public?Furthermore, Snowden is not responsible for the wrongs of Putin. Putin may be using him for his own ends, but you can hardly fault Snowden for taking what asylum he can find from the real wrongs he exposed.
William Binney: We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing ... And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general's office didn't pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand.
Q: So Snowden did the right thing?
Binney: Yes, I think he did.
Q: You three wouldn't criticize him for going public from the start?
J. Kirk Wiebe: Correct.
Binney: In fact, I think he saw and read about what our experience was, and that was part of his decision-making.
Wiebe: We failed, yes.
posted by Reverend John at 10:42 AM on June 5, 2015 [19 favorites]
I cannot speak for gertzedek. I am saying that whistleblowing should be prevented. Whistleblowers should be protected, and I provided an example of how Edward Snowden could have done it. Nor am I saying that the extent of surveillance or spying should not have been revealed. But it could have been done in *more* effective, *less* damaging ways that would have led to prosecutions and quicker response to abuses. He deliberately chose treason and self-aggrandizement over effectiveness. The longer the saga goes on, the clearer it is that the self promotion that matters most to him.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:51 AM on June 5, 2015
posted by haiku warrior at 10:51 AM on June 5, 2015
Edward Snowden had other avenues for revealing the information about the extent of surveillance in the US and abroad, such as going to any of several senators
Um. Ron Wyden warned us about this surveillance in 2011, but he was prevented from telling us what he knew (specifically about how the laws were being interpreted) because it was classified information.
You can also read about what has happened to William Binney, who tried to go through the "proper channels" a decade before Snowden, with disastrous results.
(See also: the Senate Torture Report for how far our intelligence agencies are willing to go when Congress crosses them.)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:54 AM on June 5, 2015 [16 favorites]
Um. Ron Wyden warned us about this surveillance in 2011, but he was prevented from telling us what he knew (specifically about how the laws were being interpreted) because it was classified information.
You can also read about what has happened to William Binney, who tried to go through the "proper channels" a decade before Snowden, with disastrous results.
(See also: the Senate Torture Report for how far our intelligence agencies are willing to go when Congress crosses them.)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:54 AM on June 5, 2015 [16 favorites]
If you could go back in time and easily stop Snowden and all other NSA whistleblowers from making their information public, would you do so?
No. Because I believe a lot of good came out of it, but Snowden needs to face the music instead of hiding in Putin's Russia. Because "their information" is not a monolithic entity. A slice of it, related to unconstitutional surveillance of US citizens needed to come to light. A lot of it should have remained secret.
But please, tell me: did he *need* to reveal US surveillance and espionage operations against China?
Would you wish this information was hidden for the 'greater good of the country'
See above. "This information" needs to be qualified. Unconstitutional acts of the US government should have been brought to light. Snowden's leaks (much like Manning's/Assange's leaks) revealed way, way, way more than that. Lots of leaks about foreign surveillance, espionage and (in Manning's case) run-of-the-mill diplomacy that does not reveal wrongdoing, does not protect the civil liberties of US citizens and all they do is damage US diplomacy and international standing.
In other words, do you believe that undemocratic processes are sometimes necessary to preserve democracy?
No. Secrets sometimes are, though. Not every information should be public.
posted by gertzedek at 10:55 AM on June 5, 2015
No. Because I believe a lot of good came out of it, but Snowden needs to face the music instead of hiding in Putin's Russia. Because "their information" is not a monolithic entity. A slice of it, related to unconstitutional surveillance of US citizens needed to come to light. A lot of it should have remained secret.
But please, tell me: did he *need* to reveal US surveillance and espionage operations against China?
Would you wish this information was hidden for the 'greater good of the country'
See above. "This information" needs to be qualified. Unconstitutional acts of the US government should have been brought to light. Snowden's leaks (much like Manning's/Assange's leaks) revealed way, way, way more than that. Lots of leaks about foreign surveillance, espionage and (in Manning's case) run-of-the-mill diplomacy that does not reveal wrongdoing, does not protect the civil liberties of US citizens and all they do is damage US diplomacy and international standing.
In other words, do you believe that undemocratic processes are sometimes necessary to preserve democracy?
No. Secrets sometimes are, though. Not every information should be public.
posted by gertzedek at 10:55 AM on June 5, 2015
Also from the article cited by gertzedek and Reverend John
Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.
Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they're doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.
I note that these whistleblowers managed to remain in the US.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.
Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin with by exposing these programs and making the government in a sense publicly accountable for what they're doing. At least now they are going to have some kind of open discussion like that.
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far. I don't think he had access to that program. But somebody talked to him about it, and so he said, from what I have read, anyway, he said that somebody, a reliable source, told him that the U.S. government is hacking into all these countries. But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.
I note that these whistleblowers managed to remain in the US.
posted by haiku warrior at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I provided an example of how Edward Snowden could have done it.
Your example was a fantasy scenario. Go to Senators who opposed the program? Senators like Wyden already knew about it and opposed it but kept their mouths shut because they were afraid of the consequences for violating the secrecy rules. The only way for this information to get out was for someone to break the rules, and Snowden bit that bullet.
It was one of the strangest personal crusades on Capitol Hill: For years, Sen. Ron Wyden said he was worried that intelligence agencies were violating Americans’ privacy.
But he couldn’t say how. That was a secret.
Wyden’s outrage, he said, stemmed from top-secret information he had learned as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But Wyden (D-Ore.) was bound by secrecy rules, unable to reveal what he knew.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 AM on June 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
Your example was a fantasy scenario. Go to Senators who opposed the program? Senators like Wyden already knew about it and opposed it but kept their mouths shut because they were afraid of the consequences for violating the secrecy rules. The only way for this information to get out was for someone to break the rules, and Snowden bit that bullet.
It was one of the strangest personal crusades on Capitol Hill: For years, Sen. Ron Wyden said he was worried that intelligence agencies were violating Americans’ privacy.
But he couldn’t say how. That was a secret.
Wyden’s outrage, he said, stemmed from top-secret information he had learned as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But Wyden (D-Ore.) was bound by secrecy rules, unable to reveal what he knew.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 AM on June 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
And yes, I want to know if my government is secretly waging cyberwarfare against our trading partners.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:01 AM on June 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:01 AM on June 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
haiku warrior: "Also from the article cited by gertzedek and Reverend John
Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.
Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin ...
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far ... But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.
I note that these whistleblowers managed to remain in the US."
I note that these whistleblowers' accusations of Snowden being a traitor are highly qualified and that all three of these whistleblowers specifically said that their actions were ineffective because they worked within the system.
If you want to point a finger of treason, point it at those watchdogs, like the Senate and the courts who ignored whistleblowers who were working within the system and forced Snowden to go outside the system to make a meaningful impact.
posted by Reverend John at 11:07 AM on June 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
Q: There's a question being debated whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor.
Binney: Certainly he performed a really great public service to begin ...
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far ... But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor.
I note that these whistleblowers managed to remain in the US."
I note that these whistleblowers' accusations of Snowden being a traitor are highly qualified and that all three of these whistleblowers specifically said that their actions were ineffective because they worked within the system.
If you want to point a finger of treason, point it at those watchdogs, like the Senate and the courts who ignored whistleblowers who were working within the system and forced Snowden to go outside the system to make a meaningful impact.
posted by Reverend John at 11:07 AM on June 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
Consider, if you're one of the voices prattling on about how Snowden could've done such and such differently, that he probably had a pretty solid idea of his own options and the likely outcomes of each. I know this is hard to swallow, but the guy might know a bit more about the inner workings of the national security apparatus than you do.
posted by still bill at 11:10 AM on June 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by still bill at 11:10 AM on June 5, 2015 [10 favorites]
And yes, I want to know if my government is secretly waging cyberwarfare against our trading partners.
Calling China a "trading partner" without qualification is a clear sign you're not arguing in good faith.
posted by gertzedek at 11:13 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Calling China a "trading partner" without qualification is a clear sign you're not arguing in good faith.
posted by gertzedek at 11:13 AM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
EVIL RED CHINESE GEOPOLITICAL RIVAL trading partner.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:14 AM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:14 AM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt. He'll die a lonely old man, and apart from Jeopardy champions, no one's going to remember him.
Can't honestly say I care that much even if Snowden subsequently does do something that makes us forget about him, specifically. It's the same for Assange IMO: what they got into the public record isn't going anywhere. What was the point of this comment?
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far ... But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
I'd venture a guess that this isn't like Manning's leaked diplomatic cables, where light was shone on embarrassing comments made by people who really should not have been saying those things. I would say China didn't need any confirmation from Snowden that the US government was "hacking into China", and that this sort of thing is essentially assumed to some degree to be happening even if you don't know what specifically is being hacked. Snowden isn't doing this to let China in on some big secret. I doubt that Chinese officials, behind the scenes, are saying to themselves "the USA did WHAT?!" He's letting the American public know that every time they read some shocking news about Chinese industrial espionage etc, that it is a two-way street and it isn't beyond what your own country is doing. That this isn't just some sneaky underhanded thing other countries do. Snowden seems pretty committed to informing citizens so they can make better choices and I don't see this as going beyond what he's done previously in that regard.
posted by Hoopo at 11:20 AM on June 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
Can't honestly say I care that much even if Snowden subsequently does do something that makes us forget about him, specifically. It's the same for Assange IMO: what they got into the public record isn't going anywhere. What was the point of this comment?
But now he is starting to talk about things like the government hacking into China and all this kind of thing. He is going a little bit too far ... But that's not a public service, and now he is going a little beyond public service.
I'd venture a guess that this isn't like Manning's leaked diplomatic cables, where light was shone on embarrassing comments made by people who really should not have been saying those things. I would say China didn't need any confirmation from Snowden that the US government was "hacking into China", and that this sort of thing is essentially assumed to some degree to be happening even if you don't know what specifically is being hacked. Snowden isn't doing this to let China in on some big secret. I doubt that Chinese officials, behind the scenes, are saying to themselves "the USA did WHAT?!" He's letting the American public know that every time they read some shocking news about Chinese industrial espionage etc, that it is a two-way street and it isn't beyond what your own country is doing. That this isn't just some sneaky underhanded thing other countries do. Snowden seems pretty committed to informing citizens so they can make better choices and I don't see this as going beyond what he's done previously in that regard.
posted by Hoopo at 11:20 AM on June 5, 2015 [9 favorites]
It is silly to call Snowden a traitor for going into exile in Russia, just because it is run by Putin. It is as silly as calling Iranian-Americans traitors to Iran for finding exile in the United States, as a long-term consequence of the United States deposing Iran's lawfully- and democratically-elected government.
No one in their right mind(*) would call Iranian-Americans traitors for leaving Iran to go live in a country that toppled their country's government, and anyone who did would get laughed at, and rightfully so.
I suspect that, with the hindsight of a decade or two, anyone who calls Snowden a traitor will be laughed at for employing the very same fallacious tu quoque reasoning.
* Except perhaps a handful of fundamentalists within Iran, and few people outside the country take those clowns seriously.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:01 PM on June 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
No one in their right mind(*) would call Iranian-Americans traitors for leaving Iran to go live in a country that toppled their country's government, and anyone who did would get laughed at, and rightfully so.
I suspect that, with the hindsight of a decade or two, anyone who calls Snowden a traitor will be laughed at for employing the very same fallacious tu quoque reasoning.
* Except perhaps a handful of fundamentalists within Iran, and few people outside the country take those clowns seriously.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:01 PM on June 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
It is silly to call Snowden a traitor for going into exile in Russia, just because it is run by Putin.
Dude, we already had the discussion about how there is only black and white--gray is an illusion, it's just white polluted by black.
America*: Always Good. Always Right. Are we clear?
* And to think in second grade you pledged allegiance to the flag. For shame.
posted by maxwelton at 12:09 PM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Dude, we already had the discussion about how there is only black and white--gray is an illusion, it's just white polluted by black.
America*: Always Good. Always Right. Are we clear?
* And to think in second grade you pledged allegiance to the flag. For shame.
posted by maxwelton at 12:09 PM on June 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
1. It's great that we're re-hashing the same arguments that we were going over when this first happened about Snowden fleeing to China and then Russia, as if he had a ton of other options that wouldn't end with him tortured in a secret prison.
And when I say great, I mean that sincerely, because it proves the maxim that some people can't be convinced of what they don't want to be convinced of. The desire to be right is more important than the desire for what they're right about to be true. It is healthy to be reminded of that when we see transparently, willfully ignorant or just pollyannaish arguments made ad infinitum, because it reminds us: that could be us on, albeit on a different topic. I hope we can learn from their mistakes. Be wary of what you want to believe about humanity or the world. Wanting something to be true is making a wish for a blind-spot when it turns out that it is not true.
2. I absolutely think that, having done the enormous service to humanity that he did (and it was obvious, to me, that he did this for humanity rather than just the USA) that his next-most important priority is justifiably his own continuing freedom and safety, to the degree that he was and is able to retain those things. He made an enormous sacrifice, put his entire identity and life on the altar, and I think it's naive and unempathetic to not credit those actions against whatever debit you see in his strategy to retain his autonomy after that service was done.
3. A post-nationalist perspective on world affairs makes it completely apparent why Snowden talked to the Chinese press, why he went to Russia, and makes almost anything he's done after make sense. Do you owe your allegiance to a nation who you know for certainwants to jail, possibly torture and kill you, after you have done what you perceive to be an act of moral sacrifice? Of course you don't. That Snowden keeps trying to tell the US, keeps trying to warn us, is to me an act of utter altruism. Would you keep trying to help an angry person who wants you locked up for life, possibly dead?
4. Also about post-nationalism; the jingoistic focus on US interests as the metric for which we should judge the morality of his actions presumes that I somehow believe I have some kind of common interest or mutual stake held with the intelligence community, which is just laughable on its face. I know some spooks personally, and they're human, sure--they breathe oxygen and poop and all the rest. But the level of weird, authoritarian self-justification I've heard for blatant violations of the Bill of Rights, for instance, makes it utterly clear that they and I are Not On The Same Team Anymore. I'm sorry, black bagging mosques with a geiger counter doesn't make you a Good Guy--even less so when you find nothing, and destroy the trust of the Muslim community for law enforcement.
5. If anybody died, show and prove. I've heard the accusation, but short of dolts like John Schindler who say "We know things you're not allowed to know," I haven't heard a peep. I have heard that official damage reports were unable to show actual casualties, and have instead relied on public statements by known liars like Clapper, statements long on bombast, and short on credible information.
6. LeCarre, in a later-written foreward for (I think) Smiley's People said that after the Cold War had ended, he and others who were Playing The Game started to feel like most clandestine work didn't really matter or make any difference. They were doing it because the Other Guys were doing it. It's like if pro football teams sprung fully formed into major metropolitan areas, simply by virtue of them existing in OTHER major metropolitan areas. The other guys did it, so you had to as well. But did we really? Do we? Does it add value? Can we measure the value? I study and read almost exclusively (when I'm reading non-fiction) about the Cold War in specific and espionage and clandestine services in general, and I've come away thinking that overall it's an employment program for paranoiacs with ivy league credentials and, more recently, Mormons. There are a lot of Mormons in the TLAs.
Sorry for the ramble.
posted by turntraitor at 12:22 PM on June 5, 2015 [18 favorites]
And when I say great, I mean that sincerely, because it proves the maxim that some people can't be convinced of what they don't want to be convinced of. The desire to be right is more important than the desire for what they're right about to be true. It is healthy to be reminded of that when we see transparently, willfully ignorant or just pollyannaish arguments made ad infinitum, because it reminds us: that could be us on, albeit on a different topic. I hope we can learn from their mistakes. Be wary of what you want to believe about humanity or the world. Wanting something to be true is making a wish for a blind-spot when it turns out that it is not true.
2. I absolutely think that, having done the enormous service to humanity that he did (and it was obvious, to me, that he did this for humanity rather than just the USA) that his next-most important priority is justifiably his own continuing freedom and safety, to the degree that he was and is able to retain those things. He made an enormous sacrifice, put his entire identity and life on the altar, and I think it's naive and unempathetic to not credit those actions against whatever debit you see in his strategy to retain his autonomy after that service was done.
3. A post-nationalist perspective on world affairs makes it completely apparent why Snowden talked to the Chinese press, why he went to Russia, and makes almost anything he's done after make sense. Do you owe your allegiance to a nation who you know for certainwants to jail, possibly torture and kill you, after you have done what you perceive to be an act of moral sacrifice? Of course you don't. That Snowden keeps trying to tell the US, keeps trying to warn us, is to me an act of utter altruism. Would you keep trying to help an angry person who wants you locked up for life, possibly dead?
4. Also about post-nationalism; the jingoistic focus on US interests as the metric for which we should judge the morality of his actions presumes that I somehow believe I have some kind of common interest or mutual stake held with the intelligence community, which is just laughable on its face. I know some spooks personally, and they're human, sure--they breathe oxygen and poop and all the rest. But the level of weird, authoritarian self-justification I've heard for blatant violations of the Bill of Rights, for instance, makes it utterly clear that they and I are Not On The Same Team Anymore. I'm sorry, black bagging mosques with a geiger counter doesn't make you a Good Guy--even less so when you find nothing, and destroy the trust of the Muslim community for law enforcement.
5. If anybody died, show and prove. I've heard the accusation, but short of dolts like John Schindler who say "We know things you're not allowed to know," I haven't heard a peep. I have heard that official damage reports were unable to show actual casualties, and have instead relied on public statements by known liars like Clapper, statements long on bombast, and short on credible information.
6. LeCarre, in a later-written foreward for (I think) Smiley's People said that after the Cold War had ended, he and others who were Playing The Game started to feel like most clandestine work didn't really matter or make any difference. They were doing it because the Other Guys were doing it. It's like if pro football teams sprung fully formed into major metropolitan areas, simply by virtue of them existing in OTHER major metropolitan areas. The other guys did it, so you had to as well. But did we really? Do we? Does it add value? Can we measure the value? I study and read almost exclusively (when I'm reading non-fiction) about the Cold War in specific and espionage and clandestine services in general, and I've come away thinking that overall it's an employment program for paranoiacs with ivy league credentials and, more recently, Mormons. There are a lot of Mormons in the TLAs.
Sorry for the ramble.
posted by turntraitor at 12:22 PM on June 5, 2015 [18 favorites]
Snowden's going to do or say something that will show his true colors as a self-aggrandizing dolt.
What a hideously stupid thing to say. Why is it necessary?
posted by aydeejones at 12:30 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
What a hideously stupid thing to say. Why is it necessary?
posted by aydeejones at 12:30 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
known liars like Clapper
I don't get why he isn't in prison on felony perjury charges. I mean, I get it (corruption, etc.) but I don't. It seems his freedom should at least nullify complaints about Snowden's. Anyone who thinks Snowden should be imprisoned should have a non-looney-tunes explanation for why Clapper and his accomplices are still, to this day, free men.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:39 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't get why he isn't in prison on felony perjury charges. I mean, I get it (corruption, etc.) but I don't. It seems his freedom should at least nullify complaints about Snowden's. Anyone who thinks Snowden should be imprisoned should have a non-looney-tunes explanation for why Clapper and his accomplices are still, to this day, free men.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:39 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
And by non-looney-tunes explanation, something other than the sneering "You can't handle the truth" variety.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:41 PM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:41 PM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
We really do have a multi-tier justice system. It's as simple as that. Don't look for more complicated explanations--it just works different if you're on the inside. The head of the goddamn CIA broke operational security to get his dick wet, and walked with a slap. What else needs to be said?
posted by turntraitor at 12:44 PM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by turntraitor at 12:44 PM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not to mention all the torture. Can't we just let Snowden walk on, "We need to look forwards not backwards, stop playing the blame game!" grounds now that basically everybody agrees he was right that the programs were out of hand?
posted by Drinky Die at 12:51 PM on June 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:51 PM on June 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Count me among those who consider Edward Snowden to be a self-aggrandizing traitor and hypocrite.
I started to respond, but realized I'd already reached a "someone is wrong on the internet" level of sputtering outrage.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I started to respond, but realized I'd already reached a "someone is wrong on the internet" level of sputtering outrage.
posted by ryanshepard at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Snowden seems pretty committed to informing citizens"
Informing citizens about US secrets that are not violating any US laws. Awesome. Let him do it, because USA BAD or whatever.
posted by gertzedek at 4:15 PM on June 5, 2015
Informing citizens about US secrets that are not violating any US laws. Awesome. Let him do it, because USA BAD or whatever.
posted by gertzedek at 4:15 PM on June 5, 2015
Informing citizens about US secrets that are not violating any US laws. Awesome. Let him do it, because USA BAD or whatever.
If we're talking about laws that had to be changed in secret so the public wouldn't realize the constitution was being violated, then yes. BAD USA NO BISCUIT.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:20 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
If we're talking about laws that had to be changed in secret so the public wouldn't realize the constitution was being violated, then yes. BAD USA NO BISCUIT.
posted by lumpenprole at 4:20 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Informing citizens about US secrets that are not violating any US laws.
I'm sure that if the secrets are benign, they'll be able to prove so in public. Otherwise, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:24 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm sure that if the secrets are benign, they'll be able to prove so in public. Otherwise, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:24 PM on June 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not to mention that the whole "OMG hypocritical Snowden fled to Russia, Russia bad!!" argument is kind of a quit-hitting-yourself tactic: He's in Russia because he's stranded there, not because he had any desire to be there in the first place. This is super old, well-known information and yet it keeps coming up over and over again whenever Snowden is in the news and people want some reason to badmouth him. To wit:
If you really think throwing a guy in prison for life under a 1917 law intended to apply to spies for revealing massive government abuses without allowing him to mount a defense is Good and Just , then cool, come out and say it explicitly. Don't beat around the bush and insinuate something sinister about his motivations from the fact that he's in Russia. We know why he's there: the US stranded him there and he can't leave except to come home, and that's what awaits him here.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:00 PM on June 5, 2015 [22 favorites]
- Snowden had a layover in Moscow before a flight that would have taken him to Cuba. His passport was revoked by the time he landed in Russia, leaving him no way to exit. (cite)
- The US made it clear that they and their European allies would aggressively resist any attempts he made to leave Russia - at one point, suspecting that Snowden was on board a plane departing Russia, Portugal refused to let the plane land and refuel, and France denied the plane access to its airspace. After finally receiving permission to land in Austria, hey!, it turned out the plane that western Europe almost let run out of fuel and crash belonged to and was carrying the president of Bolivia. But you can't make an omelette, amirite?? (cite)
- Snowden's been saying pretty much since he first left that he would love to return to the US, as long as he could present a reasonable defense at trial. (cite) But under the Espionage Act, there's no whistleblower exception, and courts have barred defendants from introducing evidence about the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, or the lack of harm caused by the leaks. (cite)
- All these rumors about how Snowden is surely handing docs over to the FSB, or getting them extorted or hacked out of his hands anyway, are nonsense anyway considering that he gave his only copies to the journalists he met in Hong Kong and didn't take any with him once he left. (cite)
If you really think throwing a guy in prison for life under a 1917 law intended to apply to spies for revealing massive government abuses without allowing him to mount a defense is Good and Just , then cool, come out and say it explicitly. Don't beat around the bush and insinuate something sinister about his motivations from the fact that he's in Russia. We know why he's there: the US stranded him there and he can't leave except to come home, and that's what awaits him here.
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:00 PM on June 5, 2015 [22 favorites]
Informing citizens about US secrets that are not violating any US laws. Awesome.
Not according to the only federal appeals court that's evaluated the program on the merits instead of throwing out cases for lack of standing or because all the evidence was excluded under the state secrets doctrine
Not to mention the Constitutional issues with FISA warrants that weren't reached - it's always been questionable that a warrant that covers all domestic phone activity because it's related to an ongoing investigation into "terror" could really satisfy the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, but maybe we'll get to that question someday
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:07 PM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not according to the only federal appeals court that's evaluated the program on the merits instead of throwing out cases for lack of standing or because all the evidence was excluded under the state secrets doctrine
Not to mention the Constitutional issues with FISA warrants that weren't reached - it's always been questionable that a warrant that covers all domestic phone activity because it's related to an ongoing investigation into "terror" could really satisfy the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, but maybe we'll get to that question someday
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:07 PM on June 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Relations with our allies could have been maintained while stopping the spying on them.
I know you weren't the one who used the expression "to face the music" but
posted by atoxyl at 7:03 PM on June 5, 2015
I know you weren't the one who used the expression "to face the music" but
posted by atoxyl at 7:03 PM on June 5, 2015
I helped organized the Stanford distinguished speaker event for him. Video and radio will come out in about a month, for reasons, but I will mention that he talked about his employment.
His opinion of the kind of people who worked at NSA was not laudatory, even of himself at that time. Because you have to pass background checks, right? So the $200,000/year was for passing the background checks, not any technical genius. I imagine the mathematicians and that sort who work for the NSA also have to be rigorously boring and American as apple pie and shit, but empirically, the premium seems to be for that reason.
He seemed not unpatriotic to me.
posted by curuinor at 10:21 PM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
His opinion of the kind of people who worked at NSA was not laudatory, even of himself at that time. Because you have to pass background checks, right? So the $200,000/year was for passing the background checks, not any technical genius. I imagine the mathematicians and that sort who work for the NSA also have to be rigorously boring and American as apple pie and shit, but empirically, the premium seems to be for that reason.
He seemed not unpatriotic to me.
posted by curuinor at 10:21 PM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'd just like to say, for the sake of my possible metadata log, if it ever exists, that the United States is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful country I've ever known in my life.
Be seeing you.
posted by chambers at 10:33 PM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Be seeing you.
posted by chambers at 10:33 PM on June 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
And you, #87744.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:06 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:06 PM on June 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Let's parse away some significant aspects of this situation, and entertain the notion that this isn't a typical "whistleblower" scenario. Snowden said that he didn't want this to be about him. He wanted it to be about the material. I cannot think of any whistleblower scenario that would have put the material first and Snowden second.
The quintessential Deep Throat sessions were just so much journalistic romance providing plot bones to otherwise scary stuff. Imagine, a president that breaks laws!--gotta dress that up a bit to sell it. Ellsberg rode a civil disobedience bandwagon for a worthy cause, and succeeded in keeping the light shining. Many students gave up key semesters of study to do the right thing. Some of them put their bodies on the line, in front of sticks, dogs, and guns. All this kept the fires going. Keep in mind that millions of people were required to move the order of battle from the form it took in the 50's to the form it took in the 90's. We got only a little out of that, but that little was significant.
This war is not that war. You are not burning your goddam draft card and refusing to kill Asians for Uncle Sam. It's not about whether an Airborne unit is going to make you let those black kids go to your school. This is a little more like that guy in China standing in front of the tanks. It wasn't about him, it was about the photo of him in front of the tanks. Snowden is telling us his country is fucking up (here, just read this) and it needs to be handled out in the open, not sent to a committee where reams of paper are distinguished by line after line of redactions. Oh, and by the way, make sure you send that guy to jail at the top of the news cycle.
I painted with a broad brush when I made spineless sycophant remark, but I stand by it. I have some respect Senator Wyden, and consider him to be one of the brighter lights in a dim system. He took the legal way, sucked it up, and let the illegal shit keep on keeping on. I'm glad that he kept his career intact, and I hope he doesn't lose any of his retirement bennies by having done the right thing according to the rules laid down by his election committee. He is our representative, and it's been made very clear what he gets to represent. It doesn't seem to be me.
I understand that either lionizing or demonizing Snowden are peripheral, probably distracting, tacks. But suppose Wyden had Snowden's ethical base and a similar helping of moral courage. I would call him a hero, too. Now he's just another otherwise decent man who saw a wrong being done, and yet did nothing to make it right. Yep. He obeyed the law. Yep. He'll get another term. Yep, he'll sleep in his bed tonight without wondering if, somewhere in the hills of somewhere in the hills, a highly skilled spec-op team is in training just for him.
Any comments that stray from the remarkable data Snowden has stolen for us are distractions, I suppose. But he has acted heroically by any definition that I apply to what people do. He's a criminal, I grant that. Wyden will probably get reelected.
How about them apples, eh?
posted by mule98J at 1:29 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The quintessential Deep Throat sessions were just so much journalistic romance providing plot bones to otherwise scary stuff. Imagine, a president that breaks laws!--gotta dress that up a bit to sell it. Ellsberg rode a civil disobedience bandwagon for a worthy cause, and succeeded in keeping the light shining. Many students gave up key semesters of study to do the right thing. Some of them put their bodies on the line, in front of sticks, dogs, and guns. All this kept the fires going. Keep in mind that millions of people were required to move the order of battle from the form it took in the 50's to the form it took in the 90's. We got only a little out of that, but that little was significant.
This war is not that war. You are not burning your goddam draft card and refusing to kill Asians for Uncle Sam. It's not about whether an Airborne unit is going to make you let those black kids go to your school. This is a little more like that guy in China standing in front of the tanks. It wasn't about him, it was about the photo of him in front of the tanks. Snowden is telling us his country is fucking up (here, just read this) and it needs to be handled out in the open, not sent to a committee where reams of paper are distinguished by line after line of redactions. Oh, and by the way, make sure you send that guy to jail at the top of the news cycle.
I painted with a broad brush when I made spineless sycophant remark, but I stand by it. I have some respect Senator Wyden, and consider him to be one of the brighter lights in a dim system. He took the legal way, sucked it up, and let the illegal shit keep on keeping on. I'm glad that he kept his career intact, and I hope he doesn't lose any of his retirement bennies by having done the right thing according to the rules laid down by his election committee. He is our representative, and it's been made very clear what he gets to represent. It doesn't seem to be me.
I understand that either lionizing or demonizing Snowden are peripheral, probably distracting, tacks. But suppose Wyden had Snowden's ethical base and a similar helping of moral courage. I would call him a hero, too. Now he's just another otherwise decent man who saw a wrong being done, and yet did nothing to make it right. Yep. He obeyed the law. Yep. He'll get another term. Yep, he'll sleep in his bed tonight without wondering if, somewhere in the hills of somewhere in the hills, a highly skilled spec-op team is in training just for him.
Any comments that stray from the remarkable data Snowden has stolen for us are distractions, I suppose. But he has acted heroically by any definition that I apply to what people do. He's a criminal, I grant that. Wyden will probably get reelected.
How about them apples, eh?
posted by mule98J at 1:29 AM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of the many things I respect about the USA is that it put a definition of treason in its constitution. That was a remarkably judicious thing to do. It is a public statement that the USA's critics and competitors are not necessarily its enemies. The USA has hardly lived up to its principles consistently, but it's a lot harder to get around the plain wording in its Constitution. As James Madison put it:
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:31 AM on June 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.Here's the USA's definition of treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.You can find the Constitution Society's commentary on this section here.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:31 AM on June 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
And you, #87744.
Wow, The Village has gotten crowded lately. And inflated! Back in the old days you never had trouble remembering someone's number at least.
posted by JHarris at 10:45 AM on June 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Wow, The Village has gotten crowded lately. And inflated! Back in the old days you never had trouble remembering someone's number at least.
posted by JHarris at 10:45 AM on June 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Treason is such a tribal thing. People who love tribes, love being members of tribes, love the authoritarian structure of a tribe, and love hating everyone outside of their various tribes absolutely love treason as a crime.
posted by maxwelton at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by maxwelton at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
http://www.metafilter.com/user/233
06
"Please report to the boat lounge, happy day"
A skit on The Prisoner would be funny. But I don't think we're there quite yet. Digging into Joes def, I'm fairly convinced he is not a traitor. He did steal and explained his rationale.
As bilbo said of late.
"I may be a burglar but I like think myself an honest one"
posted by clavdivs at 12:57 PM on June 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
06
"Please report to the boat lounge, happy day"
A skit on The Prisoner would be funny. But I don't think we're there quite yet. Digging into Joes def, I'm fairly convinced he is not a traitor. He did steal and explained his rationale.
As bilbo said of late.
"I may be a burglar but I like think myself an honest one"
posted by clavdivs at 12:57 PM on June 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
The inability of Snowden critics to muster any kind of convincing argument contrasts starkly with their certainty that they are in the right -- even when their cited sources are either false or prove the opposite of what they are attempting to argue. Their perseverance against all established fact is truly remarkable.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:15 PM on June 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 3:15 PM on June 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Well sure, but one could argue the material Snowden leaked was soggy.
Budd tha be Krayze.
posted by clavdivs at 4:30 PM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Budd tha be Krayze.
posted by clavdivs at 4:30 PM on June 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
The inability of Snowden critics to muster any kind of convincing argument contrasts starkly with their certainty that they are in the right
It goes through a political lens, and it all depends on how much anti-government attitude one has. And convincing is a two-way street. The gossamer methods of recording every contact made and then finding connections after the fact of a terrorist event are very straightforward, but guilt and paranoia are associated and America is a very religious place. Some of us think it is irrelevant anyway. It is likely that that every contact made is already available to private collectors or hackers in real time, including corporate repositories that secretly rate one's credit and net worth, and reputation, through complex algorithms that exclude nothing; so the government is merely an uninvited party crasher with a need to know. And there are necessary reasons to monitor government metadata collection, especially monitoring the local police who keep the money from searches, but this is a case for the NSA, not against it. I note that the majority in the US think Snowden's methods were wrong, even when he was right, while the majority outside the US think otherwise. However, the people outside the US have nothing rational to fear from US eavesdropping, which is targeting their leaders for narrow reasons, so it is mostly pride at stake for them. But for US citizens, a successful major terrorist strike may bring about massive structural changes to law and enforcement, and we may be wishing someday to rewind to more prevention.
posted by Brian B. at 4:34 PM on June 6, 2015
It goes through a political lens, and it all depends on how much anti-government attitude one has. And convincing is a two-way street. The gossamer methods of recording every contact made and then finding connections after the fact of a terrorist event are very straightforward, but guilt and paranoia are associated and America is a very religious place. Some of us think it is irrelevant anyway. It is likely that that every contact made is already available to private collectors or hackers in real time, including corporate repositories that secretly rate one's credit and net worth, and reputation, through complex algorithms that exclude nothing; so the government is merely an uninvited party crasher with a need to know. And there are necessary reasons to monitor government metadata collection, especially monitoring the local police who keep the money from searches, but this is a case for the NSA, not against it. I note that the majority in the US think Snowden's methods were wrong, even when he was right, while the majority outside the US think otherwise. However, the people outside the US have nothing rational to fear from US eavesdropping, which is targeting their leaders for narrow reasons, so it is mostly pride at stake for them. But for US citizens, a successful major terrorist strike may bring about massive structural changes to law and enforcement, and we may be wishing someday to rewind to more prevention.
posted by Brian B. at 4:34 PM on June 6, 2015
Every bit of paper generated by any government anywhere in the world needs a Snowden ready and willing to leak it to the public at a moment's notice. That there aren't more Snowdens is the real problem here. Whistle-blowing and "traitorous", "treasonous" activities need to be so commonplace that governmental doors don't even have locks on them any more, because they are so consistently busted open. We've tried it the old way for a few hundred years now and it hasn't worked particularly well, so rather than nailgunning our collective selves to this bullshit future we've inherited and have decided for some reason to play along with (either out of sheer laziness or stupidity, or a combination of both). Every time a dollar bill gets waved around inside e.g. the White House, and it isn't being used by a staffer to buy some Jolly Ranchers from the machine, there needs to be a fucking camera there livestreaming that shit to a little window just below the search bar on the Google home page. Every time some spook at the Pentagon or wherever the hell spooks hang out puts on a pair of headphones to listen in to a phone conversation, the headphones should be extra-large ones so somebody else can squeeze their head in there and be sure the spook is listening to the right people for the right reasons, for the right amount of time. Every post-it note that one senator passes to another senator should be scanned and projected on the side of a big building somewhere.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:08 PM on June 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:08 PM on June 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
UK intelligence agents have been moved because Russia and China have managed to read files stolen by US whistleblower Edward Snowden, a Downing Street source has told the BBC.
The Sunday Times is reporting that Russia and China have cracked the encryption of the computer files.
The Downing Street source told the BBC: "It is the case that the Russians and Chinese have information."
Mr Snowden, now in Russia, leaked intelligence data two years ago.
posted by Brian B. at 3:16 PM on June 13, 2015
The Sunday Times is reporting that Russia and China have cracked the encryption of the computer files.
The Downing Street source told the BBC: "It is the case that the Russians and Chinese have information."
Mr Snowden, now in Russia, leaked intelligence data two years ago.
posted by Brian B. at 3:16 PM on June 13, 2015
So they trusted Snowden (and Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras, and whoever else) enough to leave those agents in place for TWO YEARS? And in fact they were also confident that Snowden et al. were not only honest, but also had superb operational security and wouldn't (e.g.) decode the documents on unsafe computers.
This is an amazing tribute to the competence and reliability of those people. It's far more than I would have extended. Of course, it's possible that "the Downing Street source" didn't mean their claim to be taken that way. They might be lying, in order to conceal the fact that their opsec is weaker than tissue and millions of personnel records have been exposed to unfriendly state hackers. But this is an unidentified source at Downing Street. If you can't trust that, who can you trust? Nobody. Except Snowden, Poitras, and Greenwald ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:55 PM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is an amazing tribute to the competence and reliability of those people. It's far more than I would have extended. Of course, it's possible that "the Downing Street source" didn't mean their claim to be taken that way. They might be lying, in order to conceal the fact that their opsec is weaker than tissue and millions of personnel records have been exposed to unfriendly state hackers. But this is an unidentified source at Downing Street. If you can't trust that, who can you trust? Nobody. Except Snowden, Poitras, and Greenwald ...
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:55 PM on June 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Sunday Times is reporting that Russia and China have cracked the encryption of the computer files.
Ultimately, UK and US government officials are on record for lying about everything and anything related to this matter, so their statements need to meet a very high standard of validation before they can be accepted on face value.
But, in any case, if that reporting was true, Snowden would probably have been killed shortly afterwards, his usefulness as a supposed agent or propagandist having come to an end. That he is still apparently alive puts lie to this story.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:45 PM on June 14, 2015
Ultimately, UK and US government officials are on record for lying about everything and anything related to this matter, so their statements need to meet a very high standard of validation before they can be accepted on face value.
But, in any case, if that reporting was true, Snowden would probably have been killed shortly afterwards, his usefulness as a supposed agent or propagandist having come to an end. That he is still apparently alive puts lie to this story.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:45 PM on June 14, 2015
My understanding of modern encryption is that when decryption isn't trivial it's effectively impossible. If Russia and China weren't able to break the encryption immediately it's not trivial; if they were able to break it at all it has profound ramifications for everyone. A success might be due to a bad implementation of the algorithm; it might be due to a bad algorithm; or it might be due to a major advance in number theory, but it's the sort of thing that we all need to know about.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:42 AM on June 15, 2015
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:42 AM on June 15, 2015
Greenwald responds to the Sunday Times's story.
Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it’s hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they’ve learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets “report,” especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:41 AM on June 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
« Older The Cirque of the Unclimbables | Martial photos of New Zealand's largest gang Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gwint at 10:18 PM on June 4, 2015 [18 favorites]