60 Minutes and out of time.
December 23, 2013 4:34 PM Subscribe
When ‘60 Minutes’ Checks Its Journalistic Skepticism at the Door. ''“60 Minutes” is a calling, not an assignment, and the program should not be the kind of outfit that leaves its skepticism at the door to get inside.' '"In the last few months, there have been significant lapses into credulousness, when reporters have been more 'gee whiz' than 'what gives?'"'
'The sad decline and fall of 60 Minutes has been a long time coming, but now it is nearly complete. Just in recent months: the horrid hit on Americans with disabilities, the Lara Logan affair, and now tonight’s whitewash of NSA (and bonus slam vs. Edward Snowden), hosted by longtime FBI/police/NSA propagandist John Miller. Good night and good luck!'
'The news programme has become a punching bag for both the left and the right.'
'"Over the past year, the program has made it look as if there is virtually a quid pro quo: If you let 60 Minutes in on the inner working of your affairs, the show's reporters will check their journalistic judgment at the door,"'
'"60 Minutes ran not one, but two full segments about the NSA's data collection and Edward Snowden scandals, told entirely from the NSA's perspective and with absolutely no critical voices."'
'"60 Minutes" is desperately in need of a news package that earns it praise rather than criticism. It needs to put up a hard-hitting investigation, fact-checked to the teeth, that doesn't come off as a promotional puff-piece. Because its reputation as the gold standard of television journalism has taken some serious hits of late.'
'The news programme has become a punching bag for both the left and the right.'
'"Over the past year, the program has made it look as if there is virtually a quid pro quo: If you let 60 Minutes in on the inner working of your affairs, the show's reporters will check their journalistic judgment at the door,"'
'"60 Minutes ran not one, but two full segments about the NSA's data collection and Edward Snowden scandals, told entirely from the NSA's perspective and with absolutely no critical voices."'
'"60 Minutes" is desperately in need of a news package that earns it praise rather than criticism. It needs to put up a hard-hitting investigation, fact-checked to the teeth, that doesn't come off as a promotional puff-piece. Because its reputation as the gold standard of television journalism has taken some serious hits of late.'
No, it's 60 Minutes.
posted by Justinian at 4:43 PM on December 23, 2013 [32 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:43 PM on December 23, 2013 [32 favorites]
I'm pretty sure if you look up fluff in the dictionary it's a picture of Lara Logan.
The state of journalism in America. Ugh.
posted by nowhere man at 4:49 PM on December 23, 2013
The state of journalism in America. Ugh.
posted by nowhere man at 4:49 PM on December 23, 2013
Because its reputation as the gold standard of television journalism has taken some serious hits of late.
Er, "of late" as in "since the early 1990s"?
posted by chavenet at 4:50 PM on December 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Er, "of late" as in "since the early 1990s"?
posted by chavenet at 4:50 PM on December 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick...
posted by Metro Gnome at 4:55 PM on December 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by Metro Gnome at 4:55 PM on December 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
What's the frequency Kenneth?
posted by JohnnyGunn at 4:57 PM on December 23, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 4:57 PM on December 23, 2013 [13 favorites]
Er, "of late" as in "since the early 1990s"?
Worth repeating. I'm 32 years old, and don't think I even ever remember a point where 60 Minutes was any more valid then say.. CBS Sunday Morning. 20/20 was the hotshit show of the 80's and 90's that I remember.
posted by mediocre at 5:01 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Worth repeating. I'm 32 years old, and don't think I even ever remember a point where 60 Minutes was any more valid then say.. CBS Sunday Morning. 20/20 was the hotshit show of the 80's and 90's that I remember.
posted by mediocre at 5:01 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Let's also note that they ran the Amazon drone piece the day before cyber Monday.
posted by thecaddy at 5:03 PM on December 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
posted by thecaddy at 5:03 PM on December 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
Plus their whole big infomercial for Amazon was the night before Cyber Monday, wasn't it? I expected more attention to that, not because the other stuff wasn't also big, but because that bit was literally just a big sales pitch for a company during the hottest shopping season of the year.
posted by Sequence at 5:03 PM on December 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Sequence at 5:03 PM on December 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
Worth repeating. I'm 32 years old, and don't think I even ever remember a point where 60 Minutes was any more valid then say.. CBS Sunday Morning. 20/20 was the hotshit show of the 80's and 90's that I remember.
I am 32 as well, and remember that their stand on the Jeff Wigand / Brown and Williamson thing was much more profound than anything that Sunday Morning or 20/20 ever did.
I've been much a news addict since I was very young and can't remember 20/20 ever running a report which seemed like hard news.
posted by banal evil at 5:08 PM on December 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
I am 32 as well, and remember that their stand on the Jeff Wigand / Brown and Williamson thing was much more profound than anything that Sunday Morning or 20/20 ever did.
I've been much a news addict since I was very young and can't remember 20/20 ever running a report which seemed like hard news.
posted by banal evil at 5:08 PM on December 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
The main problem with '60 Minutes' is that people still discuss '60 Minutes' like it means something. If we all stopped talking about it...
posted by twsf at 5:08 PM on December 23, 2013
posted by twsf at 5:08 PM on December 23, 2013
I'm 53 and when I was in my early 20s, I happened to mention to someone that I did not have a television set. She said that she'd like to get rid of hers but she felt so strongly about certain shows, specifically 60 Minutes. Even then, I thought she was buying in too avidly to what was merely an entertainment program.
I remember when I was in law school, my corporate tax professor said one day, apropos of nothing in particular that I can recall, "If the doorbell rings, and you see that it's 60 Minutes on your doorstep, you would be an idiot to open the door."
posted by janey47 at 5:11 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I remember when I was in law school, my corporate tax professor said one day, apropos of nothing in particular that I can recall, "If the doorbell rings, and you see that it's 60 Minutes on your doorstep, you would be an idiot to open the door."
posted by janey47 at 5:11 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
What was "the horrid hit on Americans with disabilities"?
posted by Ardiril at 5:14 PM on December 23, 2013
posted by Ardiril at 5:14 PM on December 23, 2013
Watchdog journalism is in decline across the spectrum, which some say reflect a bias for the status quo generally, rather than shaking the tree. Whatever one believes, there is no one viewpoint on what constitutes news, least of all investigative journalism (because of cultural assumptions about what constitutes truth, justice, and morality).
posted by Brian B. at 5:17 PM on December 23, 2013
posted by Brian B. at 5:17 PM on December 23, 2013
What was "the horrid hit on Americans with disabilities"?
My Googling came up with this: '60 Minutes'' shameful attack on the disabled
posted by brainmouse at 5:19 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
My Googling came up with this: '60 Minutes'' shameful attack on the disabled
posted by brainmouse at 5:19 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Mike Wallace and co. used to stick it to corporate and govt. ne'er-do-wells in the early 80s. They were actual investigative journalists! And it was a running joke about knowing you were done for when 60 Minutes showed up. Here's a great SNL parody featuring Martin Short. Apologies, it is metacafé.
EDIT: Forgot to mention - Harry Shearer as Mike Wallace!
posted by Mister_A at 5:19 PM on December 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
EDIT: Forgot to mention - Harry Shearer as Mike Wallace!
posted by Mister_A at 5:19 PM on December 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
What was "the horrid hit on Americans with disabilities"?
'60 Minutes'' shameful attack on the disabled
posted by VikingSword at 5:19 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
'60 Minutes'' shameful attack on the disabled
posted by VikingSword at 5:19 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Lara Logan has done some incredible work. Really depressing to see how fame and access to power has affected her work. Kind of like 60 Minutes actually.
posted by humanfont at 5:22 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 5:22 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
their whole big infomercial for Amazon was the night before Cyber Monday
Their whole infomercial was right after the release of a book by Brad Stone that was about Bezos' rise from nothing to being THE BEZOS, and along the way creating a company with a notoriously gladitorial culture that obvious flows from Bezos himself; a book with a ton of insider interviews that casts Amazon in an unsavory light. It was more an attempt to distract from the book's publicity than to capitalize on Cyber Monday; that was just a twofer.
posted by fatbird at 5:25 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Their whole infomercial was right after the release of a book by Brad Stone that was about Bezos' rise from nothing to being THE BEZOS, and along the way creating a company with a notoriously gladitorial culture that obvious flows from Bezos himself; a book with a ton of insider interviews that casts Amazon in an unsavory light. It was more an attempt to distract from the book's publicity than to capitalize on Cyber Monday; that was just a twofer.
posted by fatbird at 5:25 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Lara Logan has done some incredible work. Really depressing to see how fame and access to power has affected her work. Kind of like 60 Minutes actually.
Lara Logan has had right-wing foreign policy views and been openly anti-Obama for a long time now. The Benghazi story failure was not an unexpected "one-off" mistake, it was the result of her strong beliefs leading to a giant blind spot. It was really, inevitable. Whatever her history, as far as journalism is concerned, to me, she's just a hack these days, with no credibility.
posted by VikingSword at 5:29 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Lara Logan has had right-wing foreign policy views and been openly anti-Obama for a long time now. The Benghazi story failure was not an unexpected "one-off" mistake, it was the result of her strong beliefs leading to a giant blind spot. It was really, inevitable. Whatever her history, as far as journalism is concerned, to me, she's just a hack these days, with no credibility.
posted by VikingSword at 5:29 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
It's been pretty sad to read about 60 Minutes recently. I grew up watching the program and it seems unthinkable that the show could have sunk so low.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:31 PM on December 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 5:31 PM on December 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
Mike Wallace and co. used to stick it to corporate and govt. ne'er-do-wells in the early 80s.
Wallace was one of the great journalists of the 20th Century.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:34 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wallace was one of the great journalists of the 20th Century.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:34 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
And what should amplify their shame is that Mike Wallace started his TV career as an actor and a game show host in the 50s. When a former game show host (from the period of worst scandal, no less) goes on to outclass supposed bona fide journalists in espousing Morrow-ian values, they need to hold their heads down and perform some sort of career hara-kiri.
And that NPR is going down the same road. I don't know what to think anymore. Who are we supposed to trust? We can't be there to uncover every dastardly deed or purposeful act of malevolence against the people!
posted by droplet at 5:36 PM on December 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
And that NPR is going down the same road. I don't know what to think anymore. Who are we supposed to trust? We can't be there to uncover every dastardly deed or purposeful act of malevolence against the people!
posted by droplet at 5:36 PM on December 23, 2013 [4 favorites]
The Guardian, of course.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:37 PM on December 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 5:37 PM on December 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
Moar liek 38 minutes + 22 minutes of big pharma commercials anyway amirite
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:40 PM on December 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:40 PM on December 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
'The news programme has become a punching bag for both the left and the right.'
I am sick to death of this line, especially when news organizations trumpet it as "we must be doing something right."
Conservatism has pushed a decades-long marketing campaign to brand "the media" as "liberal," so they have a ready-made ad hominem they can use to assure their constituents against bad press. (This information bubble was perhaps most notable when Mitt Romney's campaign apparently sincerely believed he was going to win, and accurate reporting of his poor prospects were just "liberal media" disinformation.) Conservative criticism of journalism is for reporting things they don't want people to hear (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Katrina, the debacle in Iraq, ad nauseum).
The liberal critique of the media is that, having been worked and cowed by decades of this dishonest propaganda effort, the so-called "liberal media" bends over backwards to be "balanced," passing along nonsensical soundbites or outright falsehoods unchallenged. The problem with Logan's Benghazi story was not that it was embarrassing to Obama but that it was false (and an obvious falsehood at that).
tl;dr: News organizations are a punching bag for the right when they do their job, and for the left when they don't.
posted by Gelatin at 6:01 PM on December 23, 2013 [29 favorites]
I am sick to death of this line, especially when news organizations trumpet it as "we must be doing something right."
Conservatism has pushed a decades-long marketing campaign to brand "the media" as "liberal," so they have a ready-made ad hominem they can use to assure their constituents against bad press. (This information bubble was perhaps most notable when Mitt Romney's campaign apparently sincerely believed he was going to win, and accurate reporting of his poor prospects were just "liberal media" disinformation.) Conservative criticism of journalism is for reporting things they don't want people to hear (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Katrina, the debacle in Iraq, ad nauseum).
The liberal critique of the media is that, having been worked and cowed by decades of this dishonest propaganda effort, the so-called "liberal media" bends over backwards to be "balanced," passing along nonsensical soundbites or outright falsehoods unchallenged. The problem with Logan's Benghazi story was not that it was embarrassing to Obama but that it was false (and an obvious falsehood at that).
tl;dr: News organizations are a punching bag for the right when they do their job, and for the left when they don't.
posted by Gelatin at 6:01 PM on December 23, 2013 [29 favorites]
So basically "liberal" points of view are always right? "Conservatism" is always wrong?
posted by KokuRyu at 6:04 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 6:04 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
I started watching the piece when it aired and had a vision of Lowell Bergman (whom I know professionally) laughing uncontrollably, wiping his eyes and composing himself, and then watching it again with the exact same result.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:11 PM on December 23, 2013
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:11 PM on December 23, 2013
Did anyone else notice that the first paragraph said "The study, which came after a series of journalistic revelations exposing the agency’s surveillance practices, ...", and made no mention of Snowden? I couldn't access the second page, but Snowden isn't mentioned anywhere on the first page. To write an entire article about the NSA and not mention Snowden just seems weird.
posted by benito.strauss at 6:13 PM on December 23, 2013
posted by benito.strauss at 6:13 PM on December 23, 2013
For those of you expecting to see "60 Minutes," you wouldn't be missing much. Besides, after several fucking decades of late-running football games you should be used to it by now.
posted by delfin at 6:14 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by delfin at 6:14 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
I gave up on network news when they interviewed Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1992 and said nobody cared about Bill's penis. (I never cared about Bill's penis but that was pretty obviously bogus.) Looking back I should have bagged it in the buildup to Gulf War #1 when Bush #1 was talking about freedom in Kuwait. I knew he was a liar but as I recall the news corporations all played along.
Soon there won't be anybody living who can remember when the press hounded President Nixon out of office.
posted by bukvich at 6:25 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Soon there won't be anybody living who can remember when the press hounded President Nixon out of office.
posted by bukvich at 6:25 PM on December 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
So basically "liberal" points of view are always right? "Conservatism" is always wrong?
Facts are always right. 60 Minutes has a distant relationship with those. So does most conservative-government friendly media.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:49 PM on December 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
Facts are always right. 60 Minutes has a distant relationship with those. So does most conservative-government friendly media.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:49 PM on December 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
mediocre: Worth repeating. I'm 32 years old, and don't think I even ever remember a point where 60 Minutes was any more valid then say.. CBS Sunday Morning. 20/20 was the hotshit show of the 80's and 90's that I remember.
You would have been under 10 in the 1980s, so your memory might not be perfectly reliable on investigative journalism.
60 Minutes rewrote the book on investigative, long-form TV journalism. There was a time when the standard corporate response to "Sir, Mike Wallace is here with a TV camera..." was "DO NOT LET THEM IN!". Then, corporate America realized that made them look even worse than when they faced the (usually solidly researched) damning questions.
In short: 20/20 was the half-hearted attempt by another network to emulate the journalist battering ram that was 60 Minutes in the 80s & 90s.
Neither does serious journalism now. But then, that's pretty much true for network news in general; most aren't as blatant about their sellouts, though.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:11 PM on December 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
You would have been under 10 in the 1980s, so your memory might not be perfectly reliable on investigative journalism.
60 Minutes rewrote the book on investigative, long-form TV journalism. There was a time when the standard corporate response to "Sir, Mike Wallace is here with a TV camera..." was "DO NOT LET THEM IN!". Then, corporate America realized that made them look even worse than when they faced the (usually solidly researched) damning questions.
In short: 20/20 was the half-hearted attempt by another network to emulate the journalist battering ram that was 60 Minutes in the 80s & 90s.
Neither does serious journalism now. But then, that's pretty much true for network news in general; most aren't as blatant about their sellouts, though.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:11 PM on December 23, 2013 [12 favorites]
Yeah, we lefties just want them to get the story right. It's not like the Bush Air National Guard memo story ended well for the blue team. There's also the matter of the double standard -- Rather was sacked, while Logan got a few weeks off, even though it appears the levels of journalistic malpractice were as high or higher for the Benghazi story.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:27 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:27 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Aren't they (media) all just afraid to lose access? I thought that was one of the reasons they use softball questions. Nobody wants to offend anyone?
posted by nostrada at 7:28 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by nostrada at 7:28 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
I happened to mention to someone that I did not have a television set. She said that she'd like to get rid of hers but she felt so strongly about certain shows, specifically 60 Minutes.
I definitely had friends who had a tv specifically for 60 Minutes. It seems almost quaint now to think of families gathering around the TV to watch the show.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:31 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I definitely had friends who had a tv specifically for 60 Minutes. It seems almost quaint now to think of families gathering around the TV to watch the show.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:31 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
60 minutes is a trustworthy show.
posted by NSA at 9:11 PM on December 23, 2013 [23 favorites]
posted by NSA at 9:11 PM on December 23, 2013 [23 favorites]
You know KokuRyu, there's an old conservative saying that fits this point: "My country, right or wrong." So, no conservatives aren't always wrong, they just don't really care about the truth.
posted by evilDoug at 9:18 PM on December 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by evilDoug at 9:18 PM on December 23, 2013 [6 favorites]
Well, there are different points of view, but I think something that's really off-putting is a tendency for each side to condescendingly think they have the solutions, and not even listen to the other side. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. There's just different points of view.
In terms of "media bias" (in this case whether or not 60 Minutes is still doing what it's "supposed to do"), Yes Minister put it best:
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:56 PM on December 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
In terms of "media bias" (in this case whether or not 60 Minutes is still doing what it's "supposed to do"), Yes Minister put it best:
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:56 PM on December 23, 2013 [7 favorites]
So basically "liberal" points of view are always right? "Conservatism" is always wrong?
Since somewhere in the 1980s - Yes.
posted by srboisvert at 10:08 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Since somewhere in the 1980s - Yes.
posted by srboisvert at 10:08 PM on December 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Did anyone see the despicable Susan Rice interview? (By that I mean both the interview and Ms. Rice were despicable.)
Halfway through it I predicted to my companion we were going to get a segment on her kids and how she balances work and home life. Came right after the bit where they oohed and aahed over Rice's office decor and right before she lied through her miserable teeth about the NSA leaks, with Lesley Stahl nodding like a dazed chimp.
The fun part was watching Rice's super fearful body language when Snowden was mentioned. He must have some blockbuster stuff in the can.
posted by spitbull at 3:23 AM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
Halfway through it I predicted to my companion we were going to get a segment on her kids and how she balances work and home life. Came right after the bit where they oohed and aahed over Rice's office decor and right before she lied through her miserable teeth about the NSA leaks, with Lesley Stahl nodding like a dazed chimp.
The fun part was watching Rice's super fearful body language when Snowden was mentioned. He must have some blockbuster stuff in the can.
posted by spitbull at 3:23 AM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
PS: when you give up in corporate propaganda for anything other than insight into the mind of the master, I have two words for you: Democracy Now!
Real journalism hangs on.
posted by spitbull at 3:27 AM on December 24, 2013 [4 favorites]
Real journalism hangs on.
posted by spitbull at 3:27 AM on December 24, 2013 [4 favorites]
The state of journalism in America. Ugh.
Something on journalists from a past Metafilter post:
The following remarks were apparently made by John Swinton in 1880, then the preeminent New York journalist ... Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:32 AM on December 24, 2013
Something on journalists from a past Metafilter post:
The following remarks were apparently made by John Swinton in 1880, then the preeminent New York journalist ... Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.
posted by rough ashlar at 3:32 AM on December 24, 2013
60 Minutes has lacked journalistic integrity for a long time. Way back in 1986 they nearly destroyed Audi with a completely fictionalized report on unintended acceleration in the Audi 5000 (in total violation of physics).
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:32 AM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 6:32 AM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
"60 Minutes ran not one, but two full segments about the NSA's data collection and Edward Snowden scandals, told entirely from the NSA's perspective and with absolutely no critical voices"
While it is true that the interview with the NSA didn't include an interview with, say, Edward Snowden too, the interviewer did report upon criticism from other parties, and was also critical of the NSA in his own words, in sections such as:
"A judge in the FISA court, which is the court that secretly hears the NSA cases and approves or disapproves your requests. Said the NSA systematically transgressed both its own court-appointed limits in bulk Internet data collection programs."
"This week, the CEOs of eight major Internet providers including Google, Apple and Yahoo asked the president for new limits to be placed on the NSA’s ability to collect personal information from their users."
"the NSA has vaccuumed up the records of the telephone calls for every man, woman, and child for a period of years... that sounds like spying on Americans..."
The idea that the interview was entirely softball as compared to other media interviews simply doesn't fly. What it wasn't, frankly, was as insistently, kneejerk opposed to the NSA as some of its critics. More than the questions asked by 60 Minutes, what the critics disliked the most was the answers... but those answers were ones that would've been very hard to contest in any verifiable "you lied!" kind of way.
Even before the interview ran, CBS itself pointed out that Gen. Alexander's answers were "quite lawyerly", and, as such, would be unlikely to satisfy many of the NSA's critics.
And yes... these issues are complex, rather technical, and quite lawyerly, as we're dealing with implementations of court-ruled verdicts of our Constitutional rights, as code and as corporate process. This is an element of the process that Lawrence Lessig nailed very early on in his critique of the NSA programs.
"In a sense yes, we're being watched. I certainly assumed that there were computers that were making flags whenever certain kinds of words or relationships were established. I was sure that was happening, especially internationally. But the question again is the difference between computers doing it in a well regulated sense. . . Now, again the president has said that nobody's listening to telephone calls or reading emails of American citizens. Those two statements could be perfectly true and still there'd be something fundamentally important to worry about. . . that's the part that really frustrates me. . .
My point from the very beginning has been we've got to think about the technology as a protector of liberty too. So code is a kind of law. And the government should be implementing technologies to protect our liberties. Because if they don't, we don't figure out how to build that protection into the technology it won't be there. . . the point is these technologies of audit protection (is to) make it harder for the plumbers, the digital plumbers of the future to get around the protections and to violate the underlying core privacy. And that's where we should be pushing. We should recognize in a world of terrorism the government's going to be out there trying to protect us. But let's make sure that they're using tools or technology that also protects the privacy side of what they should be protecting."
The idea that we should be upset that an interviewer over at 60 Minutes -- or Charlie Rose, when interviewing said interviewer -- didn't somehow nail the NSA to the wall and show them to be lying about their programs just doesn't wash with me. They are supposed to report the story accurately and fairly, but that doesn't always mean being directly confrontational, in pursuit of red meat. Actually, it often means quite the opposite.
In any event, it's not enough to simply say that CBS is playing footsie with the NSA by interviewing them. Rather, if you're going to make that allegation, it's your responsibility to prove it... and frankly, I have yet to see any of their critics do this.
posted by markkraft at 6:37 AM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
While it is true that the interview with the NSA didn't include an interview with, say, Edward Snowden too, the interviewer did report upon criticism from other parties, and was also critical of the NSA in his own words, in sections such as:
"A judge in the FISA court, which is the court that secretly hears the NSA cases and approves or disapproves your requests. Said the NSA systematically transgressed both its own court-appointed limits in bulk Internet data collection programs."
"This week, the CEOs of eight major Internet providers including Google, Apple and Yahoo asked the president for new limits to be placed on the NSA’s ability to collect personal information from their users."
"the NSA has vaccuumed up the records of the telephone calls for every man, woman, and child for a period of years... that sounds like spying on Americans..."
The idea that the interview was entirely softball as compared to other media interviews simply doesn't fly. What it wasn't, frankly, was as insistently, kneejerk opposed to the NSA as some of its critics. More than the questions asked by 60 Minutes, what the critics disliked the most was the answers... but those answers were ones that would've been very hard to contest in any verifiable "you lied!" kind of way.
Even before the interview ran, CBS itself pointed out that Gen. Alexander's answers were "quite lawyerly", and, as such, would be unlikely to satisfy many of the NSA's critics.
And yes... these issues are complex, rather technical, and quite lawyerly, as we're dealing with implementations of court-ruled verdicts of our Constitutional rights, as code and as corporate process. This is an element of the process that Lawrence Lessig nailed very early on in his critique of the NSA programs.
"In a sense yes, we're being watched. I certainly assumed that there were computers that were making flags whenever certain kinds of words or relationships were established. I was sure that was happening, especially internationally. But the question again is the difference between computers doing it in a well regulated sense. . . Now, again the president has said that nobody's listening to telephone calls or reading emails of American citizens. Those two statements could be perfectly true and still there'd be something fundamentally important to worry about. . . that's the part that really frustrates me. . .
My point from the very beginning has been we've got to think about the technology as a protector of liberty too. So code is a kind of law. And the government should be implementing technologies to protect our liberties. Because if they don't, we don't figure out how to build that protection into the technology it won't be there. . . the point is these technologies of audit protection (is to) make it harder for the plumbers, the digital plumbers of the future to get around the protections and to violate the underlying core privacy. And that's where we should be pushing. We should recognize in a world of terrorism the government's going to be out there trying to protect us. But let's make sure that they're using tools or technology that also protects the privacy side of what they should be protecting."
The idea that we should be upset that an interviewer over at 60 Minutes -- or Charlie Rose, when interviewing said interviewer -- didn't somehow nail the NSA to the wall and show them to be lying about their programs just doesn't wash with me. They are supposed to report the story accurately and fairly, but that doesn't always mean being directly confrontational, in pursuit of red meat. Actually, it often means quite the opposite.
In any event, it's not enough to simply say that CBS is playing footsie with the NSA by interviewing them. Rather, if you're going to make that allegation, it's your responsibility to prove it... and frankly, I have yet to see any of their critics do this.
posted by markkraft at 6:37 AM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
BTW, I remember when 60 Minutes was getting bashed for interviewing Saddam Hussein on the verge of war with Iraq.
The critiques of the interview were essentially the same. They were being used for propaganda purposes, all under the watching gaze of minders.
Maybe a more accurate critique can -- and should -- be that it's the nature of journalism and public relations these days that *EVERYONE* -- from The Government of Iraq to the NSA to Amazon.com -- has their own minders. They all want to tell their version of the story, and are far more aggressive and total control oriented nowadays than they were in the past. It used to be more frowned upon and seen as aggressively paranoid, but nowadays, everybody does it.
posted by markkraft at 6:44 AM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
The critiques of the interview were essentially the same. They were being used for propaganda purposes, all under the watching gaze of minders.
Maybe a more accurate critique can -- and should -- be that it's the nature of journalism and public relations these days that *EVERYONE* -- from The Government of Iraq to the NSA to Amazon.com -- has their own minders. They all want to tell their version of the story, and are far more aggressive and total control oriented nowadays than they were in the past. It used to be more frowned upon and seen as aggressively paranoid, but nowadays, everybody does it.
posted by markkraft at 6:44 AM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Another way I would view this, too...
Most people feel that protest movements have lost their edge, their voice, and their power. Even if you want to protest an issue, the organizers themselves are oftentimes people who you disagree with as too radical... and the protests themselves are generally cattled, caged, and kept far from where they might have some real impact.
Well... why should we expect the press would really be treated any different by the power structures that be?!
posted by markkraft at 6:53 AM on December 24, 2013
Most people feel that protest movements have lost their edge, their voice, and their power. Even if you want to protest an issue, the organizers themselves are oftentimes people who you disagree with as too radical... and the protests themselves are generally cattled, caged, and kept far from where they might have some real impact.
Well... why should we expect the press would really be treated any different by the power structures that be?!
posted by markkraft at 6:53 AM on December 24, 2013
BTW, when Gen. Alexander went to Black Hat and faced off against the questions of numerous members of the hacker community, why wasn't he nailed to the wall then, rather than being allowed to talk about his family and love of country? Wasn't that softball too? If the hacktivists aren't going to stand up against the NSA, who will?! Weren't they complicit too?
Hell... some might argue that they've sold out to the government.
It's *really* easy to be critical of the NSA or critical of the media. They already have at least two strikes -- and probably four or five strikes, truth be told -- against them anyway. It's far harder to be a critical thinker, much less to be critical of yourself and/or your peers.
Some of the wisest words spoken on the NSA affair were from Bruce Sterling, who criticized net activists before the NSA release as:
"living in a pitiful dream world where their imaginary rule of law applies to an electronic frontier — a frontier being, by definition, a place that never had any laws. The civil lib contingent here looks, if anything, even stupider than the US Senate Intelligence Oversight contingent ..."
Seriously, that was Bruce Sterling. Ouch. Harsh.
It might not be an entirely fair criticism, but for all intensive purposes, that's sure what their efforts have felt like at times... Don Quixote vs. the windmills... but the windmills aren't beasts of pure evil, and Don Quixote isn't really a knight in shining armor.
And those at the heart of the matter?!
"You can see that in the recent epic photo of Richard Stallman — the Saint Francis of Free Software, the kind of raw crank who preaches to birds and wanders the planet shoeless – shoulder-to-shoulder with an unshaven Assange, sporting his manly work shirt. The two of them, jointly holding up a little propaganda pic of Edward Snowden. They have the beatific look of righteousness rewarded. Che Guevara in his starred beret had more self-doubt than these guys. They are thrilled with themselves.
People, you couldn’t trust any of these three guys to go down to the corner grocery for a pack of cigarettes. Stallman would bring you tiny peat-pots of baby tobacco plants, then tell you to grow your own. Assange would buy the cigarettes, but smoke them all himself while coding up something unworkable. And Ed would set fire to himself, to prove to an innocent mankind that tobacco is a monstrous and cancerous evil that must be exposed at all costs."
So, as we've seen with CBS, everyone who touches this issue ends up looking like a buffoon and a joke, because this is the kind of social satire where we're all part of the problem. Perhaps the question best asked is "where do I fit into all this?"
posted by markkraft at 7:25 AM on December 24, 2013 [4 favorites]
Hell... some might argue that they've sold out to the government.
It's *really* easy to be critical of the NSA or critical of the media. They already have at least two strikes -- and probably four or five strikes, truth be told -- against them anyway. It's far harder to be a critical thinker, much less to be critical of yourself and/or your peers.
Some of the wisest words spoken on the NSA affair were from Bruce Sterling, who criticized net activists before the NSA release as:
"living in a pitiful dream world where their imaginary rule of law applies to an electronic frontier — a frontier being, by definition, a place that never had any laws. The civil lib contingent here looks, if anything, even stupider than the US Senate Intelligence Oversight contingent ..."
Seriously, that was Bruce Sterling. Ouch. Harsh.
It might not be an entirely fair criticism, but for all intensive purposes, that's sure what their efforts have felt like at times... Don Quixote vs. the windmills... but the windmills aren't beasts of pure evil, and Don Quixote isn't really a knight in shining armor.
And those at the heart of the matter?!
"You can see that in the recent epic photo of Richard Stallman — the Saint Francis of Free Software, the kind of raw crank who preaches to birds and wanders the planet shoeless – shoulder-to-shoulder with an unshaven Assange, sporting his manly work shirt. The two of them, jointly holding up a little propaganda pic of Edward Snowden. They have the beatific look of righteousness rewarded. Che Guevara in his starred beret had more self-doubt than these guys. They are thrilled with themselves.
People, you couldn’t trust any of these three guys to go down to the corner grocery for a pack of cigarettes. Stallman would bring you tiny peat-pots of baby tobacco plants, then tell you to grow your own. Assange would buy the cigarettes, but smoke them all himself while coding up something unworkable. And Ed would set fire to himself, to prove to an innocent mankind that tobacco is a monstrous and cancerous evil that must be exposed at all costs."
So, as we've seen with CBS, everyone who touches this issue ends up looking like a buffoon and a joke, because this is the kind of social satire where we're all part of the problem. Perhaps the question best asked is "where do I fit into all this?"
posted by markkraft at 7:25 AM on December 24, 2013 [4 favorites]
(And if you don't live in the U.S., please be aware that this satire doesn't end at the U.S. border... especially given that there are good odds that your nation has intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US government, allowing your politicians to sleep well at night, knowing that the US government is spying on your country's citizens for them, and will let them know when any of you have been bad boys or girls, in need of a thorough going-over or a white jet rendition to someplace nice and secure.)
posted by markkraft at 7:40 AM on December 24, 2013
posted by markkraft at 7:40 AM on December 24, 2013
markkraft: I favorited your comment, as I agree with the specifics and resonate
with what I think are your sentiments. Sometimes I think:
1). The NSA really didn't exceed its official brief, because said brief has
always been the entire blue sky, as far as I can tell.
2). What the NSA has done has always been inherent in the technology
and infrastructure we've all had some hand in creating and encouraging.
Are we all actually THAT naive to think it wouldn't be used?
3). Is it 100 percent wrong to harbor something along the lines of, "Better
the devil we know ..." ? What they do isn't exactly cheap or easy, but vast
parts of it are becoming cheaper and easier every single moment. Who would we have on "our side" (more or less), as these capabilities fall into the quivers of crime cartels, terrorists, corporations foreign and domestic, etc, except the NSA?
(Yes, this is me channeling 'Buck' Turgidson, but, still and all ...)
That said, a sweaty and intense Mike Wallace grilling was always as
close to "Reality Television" as the medium could ever get, keeping in mind
that nobody was ever subpoena'd to sit with him, and politicians and business
mandarins "make their bones" by taking one for the team every so often.
posted by Chitownfats at 8:06 AM on December 24, 2013
with what I think are your sentiments. Sometimes I think:
1). The NSA really didn't exceed its official brief, because said brief has
always been the entire blue sky, as far as I can tell.
2). What the NSA has done has always been inherent in the technology
and infrastructure we've all had some hand in creating and encouraging.
Are we all actually THAT naive to think it wouldn't be used?
3). Is it 100 percent wrong to harbor something along the lines of, "Better
the devil we know ..." ? What they do isn't exactly cheap or easy, but vast
parts of it are becoming cheaper and easier every single moment. Who would we have on "our side" (more or less), as these capabilities fall into the quivers of crime cartels, terrorists, corporations foreign and domestic, etc, except the NSA?
(Yes, this is me channeling 'Buck' Turgidson, but, still and all ...)
That said, a sweaty and intense Mike Wallace grilling was always as
close to "Reality Television" as the medium could ever get, keeping in mind
that nobody was ever subpoena'd to sit with him, and politicians and business
mandarins "make their bones" by taking one for the team every so often.
posted by Chitownfats at 8:06 AM on December 24, 2013
MetaFilter has has novelty accounts now?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:30 AM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:30 AM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Actually, it would appear that novelty accounts have their own novelty accounts. Wheels within wheels, man!
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 AM on December 24, 2013
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 AM on December 24, 2013
"MetaFilter has has novelty accounts now?"
No, it's pretty much the same old infra-dig, same as in town.
posted by Chitownfats at 8:59 AM on December 24, 2013
No, it's pretty much the same old infra-dig, same as in town.
posted by Chitownfats at 8:59 AM on December 24, 2013
If the NSA is going to have a novelty account, at least they should learn how to spell Fort Meade, named after the general who helped to push back the South at both Gettysburg AND Antietam.
posted by markkraft at 10:01 AM on December 24, 2013
posted by markkraft at 10:01 AM on December 24, 2013
You can see that in the recent epic photo of Richard Stallman — the Saint Francis of Free Software, the kind of raw crank who preaches to birds and wanders the planet shoeless – shoulder-to-shoulder with an unshaven Assange, sporting his manly work shirt. The two of them, jointly holding up a little propaganda pic of Edward Snowden. They have the beatific look of righteousness rewarded. Che Guevara in his starred beret had more self-doubt than these guys. They are thrilled with themselves.
It is a rather smug photo, but I wonder what Snowden really thinks of Assange's anti-American agenda and his odd notions of privacy.
I'm referring to this:
MARTIN SMITH: In their coverage, the papers decided that they would black out the names of any civilian informants working for the U.S. military. But Assange had a different idea for his WikiLeaks' Web site. One evening, just days before publication, they confronted him over dinner.
DAVID LEIGH, Investigations Exec. Editor, The Guardian: Julian, whose project was to publish the entire data set, was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them. And we said, "Julian, we've got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to." And he said, "These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die." And there was a sort of silence fell around the table.
NICK DAVIES, The Guardian: The other journalists who were involved from all three news organizations were also raising the issue with him, and getting the same answer. Part of what was steering his judgment was his origins as a hacker, a computer hacker, where there's a very purist ideology that all information should be accessible to everybody.
MARTIN SMITH: Only at the 11th hour would Assange change his mind. His team was caught off guard.
DANIEL DOMSCHEIT-BERG: Four days before publication, 90,000 documents needed to be redacted. I mean, what do you do? It's 90,000 documents, and there's just no way that anyone could screen 90,000 documents over the weekend.
MARTIN SMITH: In a process Assange called "harm minimization," he agreed to hold back around 14,000 of the most sensitive documents. But it didn't protect everyone at risk.
NICK DAVIES: And within 48 hours of us publishing the war logs, hostile newspapers in New York and London who compete with The Guardian and The New York Times ran big stories saying, "We've been on the WikiLeaks Web site. We found material which could get people killed."
And that had a very damaging political impact on the way that the story played out, and also within WikiLeaks, where Julian's colleagues were horrified that their Web site was carrying this material and very angry that it was carrying that material and they'd never been told.
MARTIN SMITH: [on camera] The question of "harm minimization"— you came in for a lot of criticism of that, that you were in your initial conversations not concerned.
JULIAN ASSANGE: That's absolutely false. And this is a typical rhetorical trick by—
MARTIN SMITH: Why— why does this keep coming up? Why are there—
JULIAN ASSANGE: Oh, I'll explain—
MARTIN SMITH: —people out there that are saying that you didn't care if informants were killed?
JULIAN ASSANGE: It's absolutely false.
MARTIN SMITH: But you reject the idea or the allegation—
JULIAN ASSANGE: We are completely— completely—
MARTIN SMITH: —that you ever resisted— that you were into just releasing the names.
JULIAN ASSANGE: It's completely false. We have a harm minimization procedure. A harm minimization procedure is that we don't want innocent people, who have a decent chance of being hurt, to be hurt.
MARTIN SMITH: [voice-over] By the time the Iraq war logs were released, they were heavily redacted. But The Times had lost trust in the process. They refused to link to WikiLeaks in any of their coverage. Assange was furious.
BILL KELLER: Julian called me up and said that he took that as a sign of disrespect. You know, it— it made him angry.
MARTIN SMITH: [on camera] What did you tell him?
BILL KELLER: I said we believe that in those documents you posted are the names of innocent people whose lives could be put at risk. We were not going to link to that.
MARTIN SMITH: What did he say?
BILL KELLER: He said, "Where's the respect?"
posted by Brian B. at 3:24 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
It is a rather smug photo, but I wonder what Snowden really thinks of Assange's anti-American agenda and his odd notions of privacy.
I'm referring to this:
MARTIN SMITH: In their coverage, the papers decided that they would black out the names of any civilian informants working for the U.S. military. But Assange had a different idea for his WikiLeaks' Web site. One evening, just days before publication, they confronted him over dinner.
DAVID LEIGH, Investigations Exec. Editor, The Guardian: Julian, whose project was to publish the entire data set, was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them. And we said, "Julian, we've got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to." And he said, "These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die." And there was a sort of silence fell around the table.
NICK DAVIES, The Guardian: The other journalists who were involved from all three news organizations were also raising the issue with him, and getting the same answer. Part of what was steering his judgment was his origins as a hacker, a computer hacker, where there's a very purist ideology that all information should be accessible to everybody.
MARTIN SMITH: Only at the 11th hour would Assange change his mind. His team was caught off guard.
DANIEL DOMSCHEIT-BERG: Four days before publication, 90,000 documents needed to be redacted. I mean, what do you do? It's 90,000 documents, and there's just no way that anyone could screen 90,000 documents over the weekend.
MARTIN SMITH: In a process Assange called "harm minimization," he agreed to hold back around 14,000 of the most sensitive documents. But it didn't protect everyone at risk.
NICK DAVIES: And within 48 hours of us publishing the war logs, hostile newspapers in New York and London who compete with The Guardian and The New York Times ran big stories saying, "We've been on the WikiLeaks Web site. We found material which could get people killed."
And that had a very damaging political impact on the way that the story played out, and also within WikiLeaks, where Julian's colleagues were horrified that their Web site was carrying this material and very angry that it was carrying that material and they'd never been told.
MARTIN SMITH: [on camera] The question of "harm minimization"— you came in for a lot of criticism of that, that you were in your initial conversations not concerned.
JULIAN ASSANGE: That's absolutely false. And this is a typical rhetorical trick by—
MARTIN SMITH: Why— why does this keep coming up? Why are there—
JULIAN ASSANGE: Oh, I'll explain—
MARTIN SMITH: —people out there that are saying that you didn't care if informants were killed?
JULIAN ASSANGE: It's absolutely false.
MARTIN SMITH: But you reject the idea or the allegation—
JULIAN ASSANGE: We are completely— completely—
MARTIN SMITH: —that you ever resisted— that you were into just releasing the names.
JULIAN ASSANGE: It's completely false. We have a harm minimization procedure. A harm minimization procedure is that we don't want innocent people, who have a decent chance of being hurt, to be hurt.
MARTIN SMITH: [voice-over] By the time the Iraq war logs were released, they were heavily redacted. But The Times had lost trust in the process. They refused to link to WikiLeaks in any of their coverage. Assange was furious.
BILL KELLER: Julian called me up and said that he took that as a sign of disrespect. You know, it— it made him angry.
MARTIN SMITH: [on camera] What did you tell him?
BILL KELLER: I said we believe that in those documents you posted are the names of innocent people whose lives could be put at risk. We were not going to link to that.
MARTIN SMITH: What did he say?
BILL KELLER: He said, "Where's the respect?"
posted by Brian B. at 3:24 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
"1) The NSA really didn't exceed its official brief, because said brief has
always been the entire blue sky, as far as I can tell."
The NSA has always been about signals interception, electronic communications, and codebreaking of foreign governments and their agents, which is something that every major country did at the time of its birth.
The rationale for the NSA is actually pretty valid, as there are dstinct advantages to having a national signals intelligence / codebreaking intelligence organization, than having separate groups run by the Navy, Army, Air Force, etc. The predecessor to the NSA, the Cipher Bureau, grew out of the necessities of WWI, but was disbanded about a decade before WWII, due to the concerns of isolationists who disliked the US intercepting everything from the British signals to that of the Vatican. This led to a weakness in US intelligence gathering capabilities, the self-serving politicization of intelligence from the various armed forces signals corps, and numerous major leaks of US codebreaking abilities which helped strengthen both German and Japanese codes, before WWII broke out.
The problem, of course, are the ethical difficulties involving a very sweeping mandate to spy upon one's enemies. Even during WWII and in other wars, this was interpreted as including not just known enemies, but also allies and Americans themselves, as the goal was also to find foreign enemies amongst us, of which there were, in fact, several.
Our allies -- and enemies -- did this too, of course. They also spied on the radio communications -- and listening habits -- of their own peoples, in order to determine possible foreign agents. Just like mobile vans could detect whether you were using a television set without a license, similar equipment has been used to track spies listening in to coded broadcasts. (Several believe that a few of these coded broadcasts have are run by major drug smuggling organizations, btw... while Chinese numbers stations are thriving, pointing to a very active Chinese intelligence network.)
Well... this equates pretty closely to what these agencies are still doing. That said, US citizens actually have considerably more legal protection from domestic surveillance than those in most nations, which is a chilling thought in itself.
Nowadays, the potential terrorists and foreign agents are using many of the same communications networks that all the rest of us are using. The foreign nationals are too, of course, and many of them say things online that provide valuable intelligence regarding their country, whether they are aware of the security implications of what they share or not. Given the nature of international espionage, well... if you're an American, then chances are good that the Chinese Government are more likely to *actively* spy on you, your email, and your communications than the NSA are, if you know something that they might be interested in.
"What the NSA has done has always been inherent in the technology
and infrastructure we've all had some hand in creating and encouraging.
Are we all actually THAT naive to think it wouldn't be used?"
Why would the government ever monitor communications in a network that DARPA created? Don't they realize that it's lawless and it belongs entirely to us?! ;-)
That's essentially the argument that Sterling made about the cyber-libertarian argument. They laid claim to the government-made Internet, and declared it both lawless and theirs to control... and then they get upset when Pirate Bay or Silk Road gets taken down, like drones falling on Taliban-controlled Pakistan. Clearly, just making the claim isn't going to give you that space.
" Is it 100 percent wrong to harbor something along the lines of, "Better
the devil we know ..." ? What they do isn't exactly cheap or easy, but vast parts of it are becoming cheaper and easier every single moment. Who would we have on "our side" (more or less), as these capabilities fall into the quivers of crime cartels, terrorists, corporations foreign and domestic, etc, except the NSA?"
It's a valid concern, because the Cold War never stopped, in many ways. The Chinese have stolen hundreds of Billions of dollars worth of vital technology out from under us, leaders of Al Qaeda have used Facebook to find both new recruits and even the modern-day equivalent of mail-order brides... and, well, thanks to Facebook, a few months back, I looked up a crack dealer for a major Honduran drug cartel who got gunned down in a gunfight a block away from here, and there he was. Most likely, the cartel helped pay for his college education in Honduras, before sending him here. Judging from his FB, he was apparently a devout Catholic who loved his gun... the one we all knew he had on him, but the local police couldn't be arsed to stop him for. Go figure.
Am I concerned if the NSA or DEA uses the overseas phone interception or the internet to spy on the Cartels? Hell... I'd be more concerned if they didn't. These cartels are a threat to everyone around them, whether you support legalization or not.
posted by markkraft at 3:25 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
always been the entire blue sky, as far as I can tell."
The NSA has always been about signals interception, electronic communications, and codebreaking of foreign governments and their agents, which is something that every major country did at the time of its birth.
The rationale for the NSA is actually pretty valid, as there are dstinct advantages to having a national signals intelligence / codebreaking intelligence organization, than having separate groups run by the Navy, Army, Air Force, etc. The predecessor to the NSA, the Cipher Bureau, grew out of the necessities of WWI, but was disbanded about a decade before WWII, due to the concerns of isolationists who disliked the US intercepting everything from the British signals to that of the Vatican. This led to a weakness in US intelligence gathering capabilities, the self-serving politicization of intelligence from the various armed forces signals corps, and numerous major leaks of US codebreaking abilities which helped strengthen both German and Japanese codes, before WWII broke out.
The problem, of course, are the ethical difficulties involving a very sweeping mandate to spy upon one's enemies. Even during WWII and in other wars, this was interpreted as including not just known enemies, but also allies and Americans themselves, as the goal was also to find foreign enemies amongst us, of which there were, in fact, several.
Our allies -- and enemies -- did this too, of course. They also spied on the radio communications -- and listening habits -- of their own peoples, in order to determine possible foreign agents. Just like mobile vans could detect whether you were using a television set without a license, similar equipment has been used to track spies listening in to coded broadcasts. (Several believe that a few of these coded broadcasts have are run by major drug smuggling organizations, btw... while Chinese numbers stations are thriving, pointing to a very active Chinese intelligence network.)
Well... this equates pretty closely to what these agencies are still doing. That said, US citizens actually have considerably more legal protection from domestic surveillance than those in most nations, which is a chilling thought in itself.
Nowadays, the potential terrorists and foreign agents are using many of the same communications networks that all the rest of us are using. The foreign nationals are too, of course, and many of them say things online that provide valuable intelligence regarding their country, whether they are aware of the security implications of what they share or not. Given the nature of international espionage, well... if you're an American, then chances are good that the Chinese Government are more likely to *actively* spy on you, your email, and your communications than the NSA are, if you know something that they might be interested in.
"What the NSA has done has always been inherent in the technology
and infrastructure we've all had some hand in creating and encouraging.
Are we all actually THAT naive to think it wouldn't be used?"
Why would the government ever monitor communications in a network that DARPA created? Don't they realize that it's lawless and it belongs entirely to us?! ;-)
That's essentially the argument that Sterling made about the cyber-libertarian argument. They laid claim to the government-made Internet, and declared it both lawless and theirs to control... and then they get upset when Pirate Bay or Silk Road gets taken down, like drones falling on Taliban-controlled Pakistan. Clearly, just making the claim isn't going to give you that space.
" Is it 100 percent wrong to harbor something along the lines of, "Better
the devil we know ..." ? What they do isn't exactly cheap or easy, but vast parts of it are becoming cheaper and easier every single moment. Who would we have on "our side" (more or less), as these capabilities fall into the quivers of crime cartels, terrorists, corporations foreign and domestic, etc, except the NSA?"
It's a valid concern, because the Cold War never stopped, in many ways. The Chinese have stolen hundreds of Billions of dollars worth of vital technology out from under us, leaders of Al Qaeda have used Facebook to find both new recruits and even the modern-day equivalent of mail-order brides... and, well, thanks to Facebook, a few months back, I looked up a crack dealer for a major Honduran drug cartel who got gunned down in a gunfight a block away from here, and there he was. Most likely, the cartel helped pay for his college education in Honduras, before sending him here. Judging from his FB, he was apparently a devout Catholic who loved his gun... the one we all knew he had on him, but the local police couldn't be arsed to stop him for. Go figure.
Am I concerned if the NSA or DEA uses the overseas phone interception or the internet to spy on the Cartels? Hell... I'd be more concerned if they didn't. These cartels are a threat to everyone around them, whether you support legalization or not.
posted by markkraft at 3:25 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Am I concerned if the NSA or DEA uses the overseas phone interception or the internet to spy on the Cartels? Hell... I'd be more concerned if they didn't. These cartels are a threat to everyone around them, whether you support legalization or not.
True that. Need to keep close tabs on CIA assets.
posted by el io at 7:55 PM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
True that. Need to keep close tabs on CIA assets.
posted by el io at 7:55 PM on December 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, it'd be ideal if law enforcement didn't lie to judges about where their information comes from. Having the government systematically (ie: through top-secret programs) lying to judges to secure conviction is more problematic (to me) than the existence of dangerous murderous drug cartels.
posted by el io at 7:59 PM on December 24, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by el io at 7:59 PM on December 24, 2013 [3 favorites]
It will be interesting to see what changes Obama will make to the NSA programs after first announcing he had no problems with them. It becomes harder and harder to argue that Snowden hasn't done the world a great service by bringing these problems to greater attention globally (not just government spying but corporate spying as well) and that the power of public outrage to enact change is underestimated. ... and I can't stand Snowden and the cyphertarians.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:41 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:41 PM on December 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
The Chinese have stolen hundreds of Billions of dollars worth of vital technology out from under us
Citation needed.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:45 PM on December 24, 2013
>>The Chinese have stolen hundreds of Billions of dollars worth of vital technology out from under us
>Citation needed.
Citation granted!
For every Snowden-like figure who is scraping the contents of our government's intranet, archiving their secrets, how many Chinese hackers and overseas agents working as sysadmins do you think are doing the same to American businesses, oftentimes by violating the "security" of things like web email and other online services first? The short answer is LOTS.
This 2010 article suggests that about twenty Chinese spies are quietly arrested and convicted every year in the US. This is really quite common in the Silicon Valley, and has a big impact on a whole lot of companies. This, of course, doesn't include all the Chinese hackers out there who can remotely break in to their targets. The Chinese are pretty brazen and organized about spying on us, and often doing it in surprisingly low-tech ways.
posted by markkraft at 11:48 PM on December 24, 2013
>Citation needed.
Citation granted!
IP theft is costing the US as much as $300 billion a year, a government report warns, with China by far the biggest offender.
According to the bipartisan Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, which produced the report, China accounts for at least half – and maybe as much as 80 percent – of US intellectual property theft.
“National industrial policy goals in China encourage IP theft, and an extraordinary number of Chinese in business and government entities are engaged in this practice,” it says, with other major offenders including Russia and China.
Much of this theft is facilitated through cyber-espionage, which has come increasingly to the fore over the last few months. Recently, for the first time, the US directly accused the Chinese government of targeting US computer systems, not just for military intelligence but for commercial purposes too. Indeed, President Obama has described the problem as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face”. China has dismissed such claims.For every Snowden-like figure who is scraping the contents of our government's intranet, archiving their secrets, how many Chinese hackers and overseas agents working as sysadmins do you think are doing the same to American businesses, oftentimes by violating the "security" of things like web email and other online services first? The short answer is LOTS.
This 2010 article suggests that about twenty Chinese spies are quietly arrested and convicted every year in the US. This is really quite common in the Silicon Valley, and has a big impact on a whole lot of companies. This, of course, doesn't include all the Chinese hackers out there who can remotely break in to their targets. The Chinese are pretty brazen and organized about spying on us, and often doing it in surprisingly low-tech ways.
posted by markkraft at 11:48 PM on December 24, 2013
"On the other hand, it'd be ideal if law enforcement didn't lie to judges about where their information comes from."
It's a very difficult matter, as it's pretty criticial to protect sources, whether you're talking about government informants or NSA wiretaps. If the source is revealed in court rooms, then it becomes useless... and, in some circumstances, informants and even government agents could be at serious risk.
However, it's worth pointing out that most of these cases never go to trial, and are plea bargained beforehand, and that, to a significant extent, parallel reconstruction actually does find other, valid grounds to arrest people, without having to rely upon NSA tips and the like.
posted by markkraft at 11:58 PM on December 24, 2013
It's a very difficult matter, as it's pretty criticial to protect sources, whether you're talking about government informants or NSA wiretaps. If the source is revealed in court rooms, then it becomes useless... and, in some circumstances, informants and even government agents could be at serious risk.
However, it's worth pointing out that most of these cases never go to trial, and are plea bargained beforehand, and that, to a significant extent, parallel reconstruction actually does find other, valid grounds to arrest people, without having to rely upon NSA tips and the like.
posted by markkraft at 11:58 PM on December 24, 2013
The exact fgure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. The members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing theft of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”
Oh please. I'm deeply skeptical of that 300B number. A lot of what is talked about in the report is probably common place between companies in Si valley, especially when key people change jobs, and some of the more egregious violations in China probably happen as or more often between Chinese companies. The lack of trust in China may actually be keeping more jobs here. That said, I'm sure a lot of money is lost to the grey market in China, some of it due to outright theft, but not equaling the total amount of total US exports to Asia.
Fear Mongering Report Suggests 'IP Theft From China' One Of The Biggest Problems America Faces(Overhype)
Oh please. I'm deeply skeptical of that 300B number. A lot of what is talked about in the report is probably common place between companies in Si valley, especially when key people change jobs, and some of the more egregious violations in China probably happen as or more often between Chinese companies. The lack of trust in China may actually be keeping more jobs here. That said, I'm sure a lot of money is lost to the grey market in China, some of it due to outright theft, but not equaling the total amount of total US exports to Asia.
Fear Mongering Report Suggests 'IP Theft From China' One Of The Biggest Problems America Faces(Overhype)
The report itself is quite incredible. Based on almost nothing factual, it makes incredibly sweeping statements about "IP theft" (which it never actually defines, and it seems to use the broadest possible way of determining it), and then insists that the problem is incredibly big. It also assumes, without any proof, that the only possible way to have incentives to innovate is to have the strictest possible intellectual property regime out there -- and that IP is the fundamental incentive for innovation. The fact that this has been disproved by a tremendous amount of evidence doesn't even enter into the conversation.posted by Golden Eternity at 12:50 AM on December 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
IP theft is costing the US as much as $300 billion a year, a government report warns, with China by far the biggest offender.
I wonder how big that number is after removing all the pirated CDs and DVDs from it - those are IP theft. But they're hardly "vital technology"... unless there is a serious action movie gap I'm unaware of.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:33 AM on December 25, 2013
I wonder how big that number is after removing all the pirated CDs and DVDs from it - those are IP theft. But they're hardly "vital technology"... unless there is a serious action movie gap I'm unaware of.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:33 AM on December 25, 2013
markkraft: "On the other hand, it'd be ideal if law enforcement didn't lie to judges about where their information comes from."
It's a very difficult matter, as it's pretty criticial to protect sources, whether you're talking about government informants or NSA wiretaps. If the source is revealed in court rooms, then it becomes useless... and, in some circumstances, informants and even government agents could be at serious risk.
So, you're suggesting if law enforcement is worried about their sources' safety/continued usefulness, it's OK for them to lie about it?
Not only wrong, but legally incorrect as well.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:35 AM on December 25, 2013
It's a very difficult matter, as it's pretty criticial to protect sources, whether you're talking about government informants or NSA wiretaps. If the source is revealed in court rooms, then it becomes useless... and, in some circumstances, informants and even government agents could be at serious risk.
So, you're suggesting if law enforcement is worried about their sources' safety/continued usefulness, it's OK for them to lie about it?
Not only wrong, but legally incorrect as well.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:35 AM on December 25, 2013
having the government systematically (ie: through top-secret programs) lying to judges to secure conviction is more problematic (to me)
... than anything else about this situation.
FTFM.
The whole point of judges is that they have access to facts. Lying to them makes a mockery of the whole process.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:21 PM on December 25, 2013
... than anything else about this situation.
FTFM.
The whole point of judges is that they have access to facts. Lying to them makes a mockery of the whole process.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:21 PM on December 25, 2013
It's a very difficult matter, as it's pretty criticial to protect sources, whether you're talking about government informants or NSA wiretaps. If the source is revealed in court rooms, then it becomes useless... and, in some circumstances, informants and even government agents could be at serious risk..
Markcraft: What the living fuck are you talking about?
Government agents, informants, and the existence of wiretaps are revealed in court, every single day. Why is this? Well, we have this silly thing in America that we like to call the Constitution. I recommend you read it sometime. Citation: more information. If you want to live in a totalitarian regime, please move to one, don't advocate that we turn into one. Although it is certainly within your 1st amendment rights to advocate for a move to totalitarianism, and to desire a shredding of the constitution, it's also within my rights to tell you how I feel about such a brain-dead idea.
I'd use stronger sentiments to express my disgust with your comment, but of course it's also within the rights of the wise moderators here to delete any comment I make.
posted by el io at 5:22 PM on December 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Markcraft: What the living fuck are you talking about?
Government agents, informants, and the existence of wiretaps are revealed in court, every single day. Why is this? Well, we have this silly thing in America that we like to call the Constitution. I recommend you read it sometime. Citation: more information. If you want to live in a totalitarian regime, please move to one, don't advocate that we turn into one. Although it is certainly within your 1st amendment rights to advocate for a move to totalitarianism, and to desire a shredding of the constitution, it's also within my rights to tell you how I feel about such a brain-dead idea.
I'd use stronger sentiments to express my disgust with your comment, but of course it's also within the rights of the wise moderators here to delete any comment I make.
posted by el io at 5:22 PM on December 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Ask NSA Director Keith Alexander: Does Cybercrime Really Cost $1 Trillion?
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:50 AM on December 26, 2013
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:50 AM on December 26, 2013
If you want to live in a totalitarian regime, please move to one, don't advocate that we turn into one.
Preventing the next attack against the US domestically is the only way to prevent the next major step towards totalitarianism in the short term. I would like to see any arguments that explain otherwise, for historical documentation purposes mainly.
posted by Brian B. at 2:54 PM on December 26, 2013
Preventing the next attack against the US domestically is the only way to prevent the next major step towards totalitarianism in the short term. I would like to see any arguments that explain otherwise, for historical documentation purposes mainly.
posted by Brian B. at 2:54 PM on December 26, 2013
Preventing the next attack against the US domestically is the only way to prevent the next major step towards totalitarianism in the short term.
'Preventing the next attack' (begging the question there, eh) is the next major step to totalitarianism in the short term.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:20 PM on December 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
'Preventing the next attack' (begging the question there, eh) is the next major step to totalitarianism in the short term.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:20 PM on December 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would like to see any arguments that explain otherwise, for historical documentation purposes mainly.
Well, here's one bukvich just posted in another thread from Harry Truman.
That is the way this administration is fighting communism. That is the way it is going to continue to fight communism. Now I am going to tell you how we are not going to fight communism. We are not going to transform our fine FBI into a Gestapo secret police. That is what some people would like to do. We are not going to try to control what our people read and say and think. We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat.I don't think the NSA is close to the gestapo, but they seem to be incompetent and mismanaged, and don't seem to be as concerned about "those ancient, hard earned liberties." Anyway, not sure if this helps your documentation.
In short, we are not going to end democracy. We are going to keep the Bill of Rights on the books. We are going to keep those ancient, hard-earned liberties which you lawyers have done so much to preserve and protect.
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:54 PM on December 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
'Preventing the next attack' (begging the question there, eh) is the next major step to totalitarianism in the short term.
That's very close to denial, which I was anticipating. Also, hinting or implying that a future attack is not possible, or not possible to prevent, therefore not worth preventing, is circular. We know that attacks are possible, and we may reason they are more probable the less measures are taken to prevent them.
posted by Brian B. at 5:05 PM on December 26, 2013
That's very close to denial, which I was anticipating. Also, hinting or implying that a future attack is not possible, or not possible to prevent, therefore not worth preventing, is circular. We know that attacks are possible, and we may reason they are more probable the less measures are taken to prevent them.
posted by Brian B. at 5:05 PM on December 26, 2013
That's very close to denial,
Denial of what, exactly? As far as I can tell, you're the only one denying that the USA is on an ever-faster track towards a totalitarian state, hallmarks of which include spying on citizens, ignoring legal rights on an institutional scale when inconvenient, and silencing/discrediting/locking up of dissidents.
None of which has been happening in the USA for the past decade or so, no sirree.
Also, hinting or implying that a future attack is not possible
Sigh. You know that's a dishonest reading of what I wrote. You said 'preventing the next attack,' which begs the question: will there be a next attack. That's all. You know that.
Want to know how to stop the next attack from happening? Stop being such monumental assholes to so much of the planet. Seriously.
NB: Individual Americans may or may not be assholes. The people running the show, however, are by and large total assholes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:35 PM on December 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Denial of what, exactly? As far as I can tell, you're the only one denying that the USA is on an ever-faster track towards a totalitarian state, hallmarks of which include spying on citizens, ignoring legal rights on an institutional scale when inconvenient, and silencing/discrediting/locking up of dissidents.
None of which has been happening in the USA for the past decade or so, no sirree.
Also, hinting or implying that a future attack is not possible
Sigh. You know that's a dishonest reading of what I wrote. You said 'preventing the next attack,' which begs the question: will there be a next attack. That's all. You know that.
Want to know how to stop the next attack from happening? Stop being such monumental assholes to so much of the planet. Seriously.
NB: Individual Americans may or may not be assholes. The people running the show, however, are by and large total assholes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:35 PM on December 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Want to know how to stop the next attack from happening? Stop being such monumental assholes to so much of the planet. Seriously."
How's that working for you?!
posted by markkraft at 5:19 PM on December 29, 2013
How's that working for you?!
posted by markkraft at 5:19 PM on December 29, 2013
So the USA shouldn't stop being assholes? Is that what you are saying? Because it's the only reading I can glean from that passive aggressive little bit of linkage.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:29 AM on December 30, 2013
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:29 AM on December 30, 2013
So the USA shouldn't stop being assholes? Is that what you are saying? Because it's the only reading I can glean from that passive aggressive little bit of linkage.
You seem to hate Americans and want us to be punished. Perhaps you didn't even know.
posted by Brian B. at 8:12 PM on December 30, 2013
You seem to hate Americans and want us to be punished. Perhaps you didn't even know.
posted by Brian B. at 8:12 PM on December 30, 2013
You seem to hate Americans and want us to be punished. Perhaps you didn't even know.
If by that you mean I hate American Imperialism (and Exceptionalism), the way your ruling class treats your own country and the rest of the planet, and the particularly dogged aggressive ignorance displayed by Americans like you, then indeed you are correct. And if you think I want your ruling class punished for their various transgressions, then yes again you are correct.
We both know that's not what you meant, of course. We both know that you're trying for cheap nasty shots because you don't actually have a leg to stand on. You've deliberately misinterpreted what I have said in order to.. I dunno, score Internet Points I guess? I mean, I get it, you've realized you're a dinosaur and your bizarro conservative ideas are being soundly discredited every day around the world, and you're desperately clinging to some kind of relevance or something, but you could try actually using your brain for a change to effect some good in the world instead of spouting Republican talking points that are known lies.
You know, if you don't want to be one of the Americans that the entire planet hates.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 AM on December 31, 2013
If by that you mean I hate American Imperialism (and Exceptionalism), the way your ruling class treats your own country and the rest of the planet, and the particularly dogged aggressive ignorance displayed by Americans like you, then indeed you are correct. And if you think I want your ruling class punished for their various transgressions, then yes again you are correct.
We both know that's not what you meant, of course. We both know that you're trying for cheap nasty shots because you don't actually have a leg to stand on. You've deliberately misinterpreted what I have said in order to.. I dunno, score Internet Points I guess? I mean, I get it, you've realized you're a dinosaur and your bizarro conservative ideas are being soundly discredited every day around the world, and you're desperately clinging to some kind of relevance or something, but you could try actually using your brain for a change to effect some good in the world instead of spouting Republican talking points that are known lies.
You know, if you don't want to be one of the Americans that the entire planet hates.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:52 AM on December 31, 2013
You've deliberately misinterpreted what I have said in order to.. I dunno, score Internet Points I guess?
I've never heard of internet points, but your opinionated ad hominem whining overcomes your nonsense by a factor of 2.
Wait, did I just invent internet points?
posted by Brian B. at 7:14 AM on December 31, 2013
I've never heard of internet points, but your opinionated ad hominem whining overcomes your nonsense by a factor of 2.
Wait, did I just invent internet points?
posted by Brian B. at 7:14 AM on December 31, 2013
Mod note: Enough with the sarcasm and name-calling. Assume good faith, or please take it to MeMail.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 7:26 AM on December 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 7:26 AM on December 31, 2013 [1 favorite]
Your statements would carry more weight, Brian B, if you actually engaged any point I've raised. Go back and read my first couple of responses to you and respond to what was actually said, please.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:00 AM on December 31, 2013
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:00 AM on December 31, 2013
CJR: 60 Minutes’ bad run: "The ‘cleantech’ report is the latest in a series of missteps"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:09 PM on January 7, 2014
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:09 PM on January 7, 2014
« Older You have to turn around sometime... | #1: 1, #2: 3, #3: 2, #4: 4, #5: 5 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Repack Rider at 4:39 PM on December 23, 2013 [1 favorite]