we publish what we believe to be the position of the British government
June 16, 2015 2:56 AM Subscribe
The SundayTimes ran a story a few days back stating that Russia and China had cracked Snowdens cache of documents and that MI6 Agents were being emergency evacuated, lives were at risk! Snowden has blood on his hands!(Paywalled Article here)
The article raised a few questions.
Here's Glenn Greenwald with opinions
Oh, but there's more!
The Sunday times was not pleased that their hard hitting investigative journalism was being doubted. Teams of lawyers swung into action.
Home Affairs correspondent Tom Harper, one of the "journalists" behind the piece was interviewed on CNN to clarify the issues.
This did not go well.
In completely unrelated news, the UK government is currently trying to pass a controversial bill to introduce new surveillance powers.
Oh, but there's more!
The Sunday times was not pleased that their hard hitting investigative journalism was being doubted. Teams of lawyers swung into action.
Home Affairs correspondent Tom Harper, one of the "journalists" behind the piece was interviewed on CNN to clarify the issues.
This did not go well.
In completely unrelated news, the UK government is currently trying to pass a controversial bill to introduce new surveillance powers.
The Times appears to have since removed some of the more outrageous lies from the online version of the story without indicating that.
posted by ryanshepard at 3:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 3:55 AM on June 16, 2015 [10 favorites]
Why, the Murdoch press in collusion with the government?
Funny they'd be doing that, after the massive corruption of their journalists spying on everyone's voicemail for years under the watchful eye of partner-beater Rebekah Brooks/Wade (who also incited the mobs to burn down a paediatrician's house, because word like paedophile) and Andy Coulson, the current PM's former head of lying or shystering or something.
I suppose they're at least just outright lying this time, rather than spying on people illegally. That's got to be progress.
posted by davemee at 4:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
Funny they'd be doing that, after the massive corruption of their journalists spying on everyone's voicemail for years under the watchful eye of partner-beater Rebekah Brooks/Wade (who also incited the mobs to burn down a paediatrician's house, because word like paedophile) and Andy Coulson, the current PM's former head of lying or shystering or something.
I suppose they're at least just outright lying this time, rather than spying on people illegally. That's got to be progress.
posted by davemee at 4:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [12 favorites]
It occurred to me while watching that CNN interview that either the Times' sources were doing essentially the same thing that Snowden originally had, or the paper was being the government's dupe. That's a pretty precarious position to be in.
posted by traveler_ at 4:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by traveler_ at 4:11 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, it is more than "Greenwald with opinions", it's "Greenwald pointing out, backed by solid evidence, that the US government has a history of tarring important critics as Russian collaborators."
posted by ryanshepard at 4:12 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by ryanshepard at 4:12 AM on June 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
I was disconcerted to hear some BBC radio news bulletins uncritically reiterating the Times’ claims on Sunday—though their online article does append some other viewpoints, and they’ve since also reported Greenwald’s response.
posted by misteraitch at 4:16 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by misteraitch at 4:16 AM on June 16, 2015
Also, it is more than "Greenwald with opinions", it's "Greenwald pointing out, backed by solid evidence, that the US government has a history of tarring important critics as Russian collaborators."
Yeah, that was a sort of ironic understatement on my part.
It's more "Here's Greenwald's customary hardcore smackdown."
That BBC link above (Edward Snowden 'smeared by UK officials') is good but it still repeats the oft debunked line
"Mr Snowden is believed to have downloaded 1.7 million secret documents"
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:21 AM on June 16, 2015
Yeah, that was a sort of ironic understatement on my part.
It's more "Here's Greenwald's customary hardcore smackdown."
That BBC link above (Edward Snowden 'smeared by UK officials') is good but it still repeats the oft debunked line
"Mr Snowden is believed to have downloaded 1.7 million secret documents"
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:21 AM on June 16, 2015
This shows signs of Murdoch's age. Its a worldview based on one is to many broadcasting needing lots of money and thus able to be controlled. This kind of narrative falls over instantly the minute it meets current day ICT (information and communication technologies) where a) any idiot, such as the one typing these words, can publish and reach an international audience, such as you, dear reader, and b) searching vast reams of information is free, though you are the product remember, and finally, c) all of this is possible even for those who are broke.
posted by infini at 4:26 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by infini at 4:26 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I saw this link:
Five Reasons the MI6 story is a lie
on twitter originally which started me off looking at this horrible mess. It's a nice analysis of why the MI6 stuff is pure turbo nonsense.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Five Reasons the MI6 story is a lie
on twitter originally which started me off looking at this horrible mess. It's a nice analysis of why the MI6 stuff is pure turbo nonsense.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:32 AM on June 16, 2015 [15 favorites]
Also: after the UK seized materials from David Miranda at Heathrow, GCHQ successfully managed to break one of the layers of encryption, finding “terrorist materials” of an unspecified nature steganographed onto one of the PlayStation game discs. Unfortunately for world peace and free trade, they managed this 23 minutes too late for USAF interceptors to have been able to reach Miranda's flight before it reached Brazilian airspace, divert it to Puerto Rico and take him off for additional enhanced questioning.
posted by acb at 4:34 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by acb at 4:34 AM on June 16, 2015
Reporter Who Wrote Sunday Times 'Snowden' Propaganda Admits That He's Just Writing What UK Gov't Told Him
posted by infini at 4:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by infini at 4:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
Its a worldview based on one is to many broadcasting [...]
I suspect much of Murdoch's intended audience gets most or all of its news shotgun-blasted at them from Murdoch's own Times (printed) and Fox News (televised). When they see the Times and Fox News agree, they will believe there's consensus among right-minded news sources. They will ignore other sources as leftist tripe. They have read the original article and they aren't reading the rebuttals.
posted by pracowity at 4:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I suspect much of Murdoch's intended audience gets most or all of its news shotgun-blasted at them from Murdoch's own Times (printed) and Fox News (televised). When they see the Times and Fox News agree, they will believe there's consensus among right-minded news sources. They will ignore other sources as leftist tripe. They have read the original article and they aren't reading the rebuttals.
posted by pracowity at 4:47 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I hadn't thought of that. Wasn't it called the Fox News Syndrome or some such where research discovered Fox News watchers were [less aware] than even people who never went near the news?
posted by infini at 4:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 4:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Maybe I have too high an opinion of The Times readers, but most are not watching Fox News. I have a vain hope that, like Daily Telegraph readers, they will feel suitably insulted by the shenanigans of their paper.
posted by Thing at 5:02 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Thing at 5:02 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Since Hong Kong was Snowden's first port-of-call, many Chinese- and English-language print and online media here eagerly report any news about, albeit temporarily, Hong Kong's adopted son.
So it was no surprise that, for instance, Hong Kong's leading English-language paper South China Morning Post front-paged a digest of the Sunday Times' claims.
Mission Accomplished!
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:09 AM on June 16, 2015
So it was no surprise that, for instance, Hong Kong's leading English-language paper South China Morning Post front-paged a digest of the Sunday Times' claims.
Mission Accomplished!
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:09 AM on June 16, 2015
"Snowden has blood on his hands" says intelligence ministry in bloody fingerpaint from their blood-spattered press room while seated in chairs made of blood around a table made of blood in the Vauxhall Cross Blood Spires complex.
Paper dutifully reprints in crisp black and white.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [58 favorites]
Paper dutifully reprints in crisp black and white.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:14 AM on June 16, 2015 [58 favorites]
Propaganda does not have to be believable to be effective. In an era where any story circles the globe in microseconds, simply establishing doubt is sufficient, and far more people will read the original than any follow up stories.
This is why the right wing hammers HRC on Benghazi, not because they believe in any wrong-doing, but to show the seeds of doubt in the public.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
This is why the right wing hammers HRC on Benghazi, not because they believe in any wrong-doing, but to show the seeds of doubt in the public.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:19 AM on June 16, 2015 [14 favorites]
Kirth Gerson: "My usually reliable sources say that their anonymous sources are full of shit."
My people agree with your people, even though they asked not to be named.
posted by Samizdata at 5:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
My people agree with your people, even though they asked not to be named.
posted by Samizdata at 5:46 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.
"Dumb" is not the adjective which comes to mind.
posted by three blind mice at 6:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
"Dumb" is not the adjective which comes to mind.
posted by three blind mice at 6:00 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
From the link Just this guy, y'know shared: "In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our “diplomats” in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them."
This is just so ridiculously elegant I can't stop grinning. Its like something from a John le Carré novel.
posted by litereally at 6:05 AM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
This is just so ridiculously elegant I can't stop grinning. Its like something from a John le Carré novel.
posted by litereally at 6:05 AM on June 16, 2015 [35 favorites]
If your story doesn't even stand up to the scrutiny of a CNN interviewer, you're really in trouble...
posted by edheil at 6:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by edheil at 6:18 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
By definition, authoritarians reflexively believe official claims — no matter how dubious or obviously self-serving, even when made while hiding behind anonymity — because that’s how their submission functions.
Hooray (again) for Glenn Greenwald.
posted by bukvich at 6:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hooray (again) for Glenn Greenwald.
posted by bukvich at 6:42 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The irony is that it could all be true that Russia and China have the documents, but that this story is a political lie. The burden of proof is still on Snowden and Greenwald. Snowden claimed in October 2013 (according to Wikipedia) that his much hyped four laptaps were merely a "diversion" and contained no files as previously claimed, and that he "destroyed" the files before arriving in Russia. But it was Greenwald who was trusted by Snowden to hand the actual files over to the journalists while in Hong Kong, after the story broke and after everyone knew they existed. Were these files given with passcodes?
posted by Brian B. at 7:39 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by Brian B. at 7:39 AM on June 16, 2015
Both the US and Britain are asking for more surveillance powers after the huge Chinese hack of last week. These two governments seem to be trying to divert blame for failures of their own intelligence.
Of course everyone is waiting for the, "I told you so" moment. As my Dad used to quip, "Please, don't confuse me with the facts!"
posted by Oyéah at 7:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Of course everyone is waiting for the, "I told you so" moment. As my Dad used to quip, "Please, don't confuse me with the facts!"
posted by Oyéah at 7:49 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
This Times article has done a lot of damage; it's been repeated and reposted in a bunch of forms in online sites and newspapers and has become a casual kind of truth. For example a smart, normally skeptical friend of mine posted the Business Insider version to Facebook on Sunday with the summary "Actions have consequences. I guess he can kiss his presidential pardon goodbye." If you're not paying close attention the article seems plausible enough, and satisfies everyone's confirmation bias that they just don't like that smart alecky bearded kid and why is he in Russia anyway?
I'm so grateful to CNN for doing that interview with the Times author. What the Times published isn't journalism, it's stenography. And it's an embarrassment to the paper.
posted by Nelson at 7:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm so grateful to CNN for doing that interview with the Times author. What the Times published isn't journalism, it's stenography. And it's an embarrassment to the paper.
posted by Nelson at 7:52 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
The damage has already been done with this article. No amount of debunking is going to have the same reach as the spread of this misinformation.
I hate that our current political climate means truth doesn't matter nearly as much as the first well-publicized lie.
posted by sleeping bear at 7:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
I hate that our current political climate means truth doesn't matter nearly as much as the first well-publicized lie.
posted by sleeping bear at 7:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Brian B.: The burden of proof is still on Snowden and Greenwald.
Serious question: What's your moral reasoning for this? Traditionally we'd argue that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Here you're saying it lies with the accused.
posted by lodurr at 8:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Serious question: What's your moral reasoning for this? Traditionally we'd argue that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Here you're saying it lies with the accused.
posted by lodurr at 8:31 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Both the US and Britain are asking for more surveillance powers after the huge Chinese hack of last week.
There is some evidence that data from the OPM breach is being offered for sale on dark web marketplaces, something that seems inconsistent with an attack by Chinese state hackers.
The US does attribution badly, overly quickly, and in a self-serving way (see, for example, its response to the Sony hack.) I would be very, very skeptical of any claims of Chinese government responsibility until this is independently verified. They're using this for propaganda purposes first and foremost.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
There is some evidence that data from the OPM breach is being offered for sale on dark web marketplaces, something that seems inconsistent with an attack by Chinese state hackers.
The US does attribution badly, overly quickly, and in a self-serving way (see, for example, its response to the Sony hack.) I would be very, very skeptical of any claims of Chinese government responsibility until this is independently verified. They're using this for propaganda purposes first and foremost.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:45 AM on June 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Bruce Schneier for Wired: China and Russia Almost Definitely Have the Snowden Docs. "it’s almost certainly not Snowden’s fault."
posted by Nelson at 8:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 8:56 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Can Snowden sue Murdoch's company for libel?
posted by bukvich at 8:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bukvich at 8:59 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of the reasons Schneier thinks it's not Snowden's fault:
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:30 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
I believe that both China and Russia had access to all the files that Snowden took well before Snowden took them because they’ve penetrated the NSA networks where those files reside. After all, the NSA has been a prime target for decades.As usual, the ones our government's secrecy is keeping from knowing this stuff is us.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:30 AM on June 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
Propaganda does not have to be believable to be effective. In an era where any story circles the globe in microseconds, simply establishing doubt is sufficient, and far more people will read the original than any follow up stories.i've been thinking about this lately after reading the adrian chen piece about russia's internet propaganda bureaucracy and revisiting adam curtis' explanation of non-linear warfare as a strategy employed by russia, and increasingly, he claims, by british media. i believe it, because it's the obvious tactic in a period of information abundance. establishing confused narratives, whether or not they're cohesively organized, creates a nearly impossible burden for opposition, because it becomes bogged down in establishing truth while it is in a disadvantaged defensive position, in a role traditionally associated with conspiracy theorists. western media is (perhaps? yet?) not as as nakedly cynical as the russian model, but i doubt that will be the case over time
posted by p3on at 10:41 AM on June 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Then an interesting thing to consider would be how Russians meet with their media and extract viable information (if at all) given this frame of reference. It may help provide insights on how to live in our media/information immersive world without going batshit insane.
posted by infini at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2015
posted by infini at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2015
Craig Murray - whose biography indicates that he knows about such matters - also gave 5 (further) reasons why the Sunday Times story is a lie.
posted by rongorongo at 11:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by rongorongo at 11:06 AM on June 16, 2015 [3 favorites]
how to live in our media/information immersive world without going batshit insane.
They shut themselves totally offline no phone no e-mail no television no anything a minimum of twelve hours a day and two days a week to start. If you are logging off right before bed and you log on when you get up every day you are up on a high wire with a piranha tank below.
posted by bukvich at 11:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
They shut themselves totally offline no phone no e-mail no television no anything a minimum of twelve hours a day and two days a week to start. If you are logging off right before bed and you log on when you get up every day you are up on a high wire with a piranha tank below.
posted by bukvich at 11:07 AM on June 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I should have put "Chinese hack" in parentheses, sorry for that. China has the money, so I am sure there are many "fact laden" supplicants trying to get some. There is always "The skunk smells his own hole." This sudden accusation on the heels of a big hack by as yet unknown parties, smells like a red herring.
Champagne for our real friends and real pain for our sham friends.
posted by Oyéah at 11:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Champagne for our real friends and real pain for our sham friends.
posted by Oyéah at 11:28 AM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
How fucked is it that as soon as I saw the headlines for this story this weekend my very first reaction was an eye roll and "wow, that's like 98% probably a lie"? I mean, it's just too pat. Pretty much that's my reaction regarding everything said by the government or anybody supposedly neutral like the NYT. It's all either outright lies, lies by omission or incomptency. Even rightwing sources I take more seriously because at least there's some truth in what their agenda is.
posted by the lake is above, the water below at 12:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by the lake is above, the water below at 12:56 PM on June 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Serious question: What's your moral reasoning for this? Traditionally we'd argue that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Here you're saying it lies with the accused.
Greenwald is accusing the paper of lying. Greenwald admits to last having the files in his possession before they disappeared. Snowden should have had witnesses and recorded his file destruction to back up his claims. Furthermore, the file possession transfer without giving passcodes doesn't make too much sense, so encryption/decryption isn't yet relevant to a believable narrative involving file gifting to anonymous others. If a remote passcode source is detained or dead, revenge by revelation is off the table.
posted by Brian B. at 3:26 PM on June 16, 2015
Greenwald is accusing the paper of lying. Greenwald admits to last having the files in his possession before they disappeared. Snowden should have had witnesses and recorded his file destruction to back up his claims. Furthermore, the file possession transfer without giving passcodes doesn't make too much sense, so encryption/decryption isn't yet relevant to a believable narrative involving file gifting to anonymous others. If a remote passcode source is detained or dead, revenge by revelation is off the table.
posted by Brian B. at 3:26 PM on June 16, 2015
davemee - Rebekah Brooks/Wade (who also incited the mobs to burn down a paediatrician's house, because word like paedophile)
In a thread dealing with journalistic integrity I feel it should be noted that the Rebekah Brooks/Wade paedo mob story is a media concoction. Much as I distrust anyone who has the favour of Murdoch, she is not guilty of this charge. The News of the World campaign against paedophiles was a cheap outrage fomenting marketing gambit, but it did not result in a paediatrician's house being burned down, nor was a paediatrician chased down the street, nor did a mob form outside a paediatrician's house.
posted by asok at 3:46 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
In a thread dealing with journalistic integrity I feel it should be noted that the Rebekah Brooks/Wade paedo mob story is a media concoction. Much as I distrust anyone who has the favour of Murdoch, she is not guilty of this charge. The News of the World campaign against paedophiles was a cheap outrage fomenting marketing gambit, but it did not result in a paediatrician's house being burned down, nor was a paediatrician chased down the street, nor did a mob form outside a paediatrician's house.
posted by asok at 3:46 AM on June 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
The fact that the paediatrician hounding story is still doing the rounds is a good example of the confirmation bias and mis-information spreading that the UK government were hoping for with this bit of obfuscation.
posted by asok at 3:56 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by asok at 3:56 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Furthermore, the file possession transfer without giving passcodes doesn't make too much sense, so encryption/decryption isn't yet relevant to a believable narrative involving file gifting to anonymous others. If a remote passcode source is detained or dead, revenge by revelation is off the table.
Not sure how to make sense of this. Encryption requires "passcodes", as you call them (keys). Schneier, in his piece, outlines a simple technique for secure encryption of existing files that would be obvious to someone with Snowden's background and probably familiar to Greenwald as well, and which doesn't have the single-point-of-failure you seem to assume. though, also not sure why that last bit's relevant -- are you suggesting that Snowden 'must not have' handed over the files because it would leave him too vulnerable? Because it's trivially easy to imagine ways to distribute parts of the key in such a way that there's a reasonably good assurance of being able to assemble all of them if needed simultaneous with a reasonably good assurance that a nefarious actor wouldn't be able to do same.
Schneier also identifies a more plausible explanation for how China/Russia could have access to this information, so the idea that Snowden is directly culpable just doesn't really fly.
So I'm still not following your reasoning on this. Are you saying he's morally culpable because what he's done could have resulted in the exposures that have been reported? Much as I could be guilty of manslaughter if I hadn't managed to stop in time before hitting that woman in the crosswalk in the summer of 1990?
posted by lodurr at 5:32 AM on June 17, 2015
Not sure how to make sense of this. Encryption requires "passcodes", as you call them (keys). Schneier, in his piece, outlines a simple technique for secure encryption of existing files that would be obvious to someone with Snowden's background and probably familiar to Greenwald as well, and which doesn't have the single-point-of-failure you seem to assume. though, also not sure why that last bit's relevant -- are you suggesting that Snowden 'must not have' handed over the files because it would leave him too vulnerable? Because it's trivially easy to imagine ways to distribute parts of the key in such a way that there's a reasonably good assurance of being able to assemble all of them if needed simultaneous with a reasonably good assurance that a nefarious actor wouldn't be able to do same.
Schneier also identifies a more plausible explanation for how China/Russia could have access to this information, so the idea that Snowden is directly culpable just doesn't really fly.
So I'm still not following your reasoning on this. Are you saying he's morally culpable because what he's done could have resulted in the exposures that have been reported? Much as I could be guilty of manslaughter if I hadn't managed to stop in time before hitting that woman in the crosswalk in the summer of 1990?
posted by lodurr at 5:32 AM on June 17, 2015
and which doesn't have the single-point-of-failure you seem to assume. though, also not sure why that last bit's relevant -- are you suggesting that Snowden 'must not have' handed over the files because it would leave him too vulnerable? Because it's trivially easy to imagine ways to distribute parts of the key in such a way that there's a reasonably good assurance of being able to assemble all of them if needed simultaneous with a reasonably good assurance that a nefarious actor wouldn't be able to do same.
Greenwald made the threats for Snowden. If it was easy to distribute keys to play out this threat, then Greenwald would likely be involved directly. Also, not sure how you imagine a single point of failure does not exist with, say, three people sharing keys only. Take one out and the file is virtually taken out. It's only one third a point of failure in that sense. My original question in this thread was to wonder if Snowden gave over any codes whatsoever to anyone, making the headline of major government decryption less bombshell, and if he didn't, it wouldn't make much sense in light of the threats.
Are you saying he's morally culpable because what he's done could have resulted in the exposures that have been reported?
There no direct moral angle at all without imaging some pure ideal at stake straight out of a political Sunday School, which would really complicate any moral argument for Snowden because Russia and China are in fact bad actors on the international stage. It's foremost a betrayal of one's side from a defense standpoint and Putin perhaps said it best trying to grab some faux moral high ground, in that he doesn't like traitors of any stripe (referring to Snowden).
posted by Brian B. at 6:50 AM on June 17, 2015
Greenwald made the threats for Snowden. If it was easy to distribute keys to play out this threat, then Greenwald would likely be involved directly. Also, not sure how you imagine a single point of failure does not exist with, say, three people sharing keys only. Take one out and the file is virtually taken out. It's only one third a point of failure in that sense. My original question in this thread was to wonder if Snowden gave over any codes whatsoever to anyone, making the headline of major government decryption less bombshell, and if he didn't, it wouldn't make much sense in light of the threats.
Are you saying he's morally culpable because what he's done could have resulted in the exposures that have been reported?
There no direct moral angle at all without imaging some pure ideal at stake straight out of a political Sunday School, which would really complicate any moral argument for Snowden because Russia and China are in fact bad actors on the international stage. It's foremost a betrayal of one's side from a defense standpoint and Putin perhaps said it best trying to grab some faux moral high ground, in that he doesn't like traitors of any stripe (referring to Snowden).
posted by Brian B. at 6:50 AM on June 17, 2015
Brian B., basically you're taking the least imaginative position you can on this, along with some highly selective interpretation of language. For example, construing the Greenwald quote cited in the blog post you linked to. Here it is, from the source your link used, so it can be seen in context:
Basically, your case requires that you get it both ways: Snowden is stupid enough to rely on a small number of people, but he's clever enough to try to hold the gov't hostage.
Given that we can safely assume much of what Snowden released was already possessed by foreign powers (see Schneier, but also see common sense, and the fact that much of what he released was not highly secret and only served to confirm stuff that reporters like Greenwald had already strongly suspected), it's safe to assume that what the US is afraid of is not the information itself, but rather, the public knowing about it.
There no direct moral angle at all without imaging some pure ideal at stake straight out of a political Sunday School...
Then why the concern with 'burden of proof'? The only reason they'd have any obligation to 'prove' that other actors had the information first or got it through other meands would be if they were morally culpable in some way.
posted by lodurr at 7:50 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinean daily La Nacion.Now, if I'm a person who writes about spooks as part of my living (like Glenn Greenwald does), I'm going to assume a spook has behaved like a spook and made a plan to protect himself. And if I'm an experienced spook, I'm not going to rely for my protection on a single high-profile journalist -- that would be moronic.
"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
Basically, your case requires that you get it both ways: Snowden is stupid enough to rely on a small number of people, but he's clever enough to try to hold the gov't hostage.
Given that we can safely assume much of what Snowden released was already possessed by foreign powers (see Schneier, but also see common sense, and the fact that much of what he released was not highly secret and only served to confirm stuff that reporters like Greenwald had already strongly suspected), it's safe to assume that what the US is afraid of is not the information itself, but rather, the public knowing about it.
There no direct moral angle at all without imaging some pure ideal at stake straight out of a political Sunday School...
Then why the concern with 'burden of proof'? The only reason they'd have any obligation to 'prove' that other actors had the information first or got it through other meands would be if they were morally culpable in some way.
posted by lodurr at 7:50 AM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
Then why the concern with 'burden of proof'? The only reason they'd have any obligation to 'prove' that other actors had the information first or got it through other meands would be if they were morally culpable in some way.
I was correcting the complaint that the newspaper needed to prove that the files were cracked before printing the quotes, based on Greenwald's accusation of their information being wrong and anonymous. The fact is that Greenwald's actions came first, and his file tenders are anonymous too, and so he needs to prove that other nations didn't crack them and explain how it is not possible, such as explaining his methods and intentions in gifting the files. It doesn't cut it to merely point out that they haven't proven anything, not from him, the cause of it all.
Basically, your case requires that you get it both ways: Snowden is stupid enough to rely on a small number of people, but he's clever enough to try to hold the gov't hostage.
I don't have a case to speak of and I think Greenwald is in charge. I've always thought Snowden is a narcissist who found himself flooded with state secrets and in need of narcissistic supply, or a desperate need to be recognized as someone important by a lot of people. Perhaps coincidentally, he knows little or nothing of our past/present cold war with Russia and China thanks to his lack of formal education. If he was knowledgeable then he would simply hate the US, and I eagerly note that "either stupid or evil" sums up most blunders. We may live to regret becoming suddenly self-righteous over impersonal intelligence gathering, as I recently noted here.
posted by Brian B. at 3:57 PM on June 17, 2015
I was correcting the complaint that the newspaper needed to prove that the files were cracked before printing the quotes, based on Greenwald's accusation of their information being wrong and anonymous. The fact is that Greenwald's actions came first, and his file tenders are anonymous too, and so he needs to prove that other nations didn't crack them and explain how it is not possible, such as explaining his methods and intentions in gifting the files. It doesn't cut it to merely point out that they haven't proven anything, not from him, the cause of it all.
Basically, your case requires that you get it both ways: Snowden is stupid enough to rely on a small number of people, but he's clever enough to try to hold the gov't hostage.
I don't have a case to speak of and I think Greenwald is in charge. I've always thought Snowden is a narcissist who found himself flooded with state secrets and in need of narcissistic supply, or a desperate need to be recognized as someone important by a lot of people. Perhaps coincidentally, he knows little or nothing of our past/present cold war with Russia and China thanks to his lack of formal education. If he was knowledgeable then he would simply hate the US, and I eagerly note that "either stupid or evil" sums up most blunders. We may live to regret becoming suddenly self-righteous over impersonal intelligence gathering, as I recently noted here.
posted by Brian B. at 3:57 PM on June 17, 2015
... and so he needs to prove that other nations didn't crack them and explain how it is not possible...
He needs to prove a negative, in other words?
I've always thought Snowden is a narcissist...
Diagnosing people who do difficult and infamous things is a convenient way to appropriate their story to suit one's preferred narrative. If you can dismiss Snowden as a 'narcissist', it means you don't have to consider the possibility that he acted out of conscience -- whether that conscience was ill-informed or not is a totally separate question from whether he's "a narcissist."
I'm also not really seeing how what you linked to supports the idea that 'we may live to regret becoming suddenly self-righteous over impersonal intelligence gathering.' What you seem to be arguing there is that we should deploy the NSA to monitor local and state police departments to spot wrongdoing. (Which I frankly find to be kind of a bizarre idea, quite apart from the fact that it's prohibited by U.S. law.)
posted by lodurr at 5:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
He needs to prove a negative, in other words?
I've always thought Snowden is a narcissist...
Diagnosing people who do difficult and infamous things is a convenient way to appropriate their story to suit one's preferred narrative. If you can dismiss Snowden as a 'narcissist', it means you don't have to consider the possibility that he acted out of conscience -- whether that conscience was ill-informed or not is a totally separate question from whether he's "a narcissist."
I'm also not really seeing how what you linked to supports the idea that 'we may live to regret becoming suddenly self-righteous over impersonal intelligence gathering.' What you seem to be arguing there is that we should deploy the NSA to monitor local and state police departments to spot wrongdoing. (Which I frankly find to be kind of a bizarre idea, quite apart from the fact that it's prohibited by U.S. law.)
posted by lodurr at 5:43 PM on June 17, 2015 [4 favorites]
He needs to prove a negative, in other words?
Also known as proof of impossibility, himself being the exact responsible party by admission.
If you can dismiss Snowden as a 'narcissist', it means you don't have to consider the possibility that he acted out of conscience
Or the opposite order.
posted by Brian B. at 6:07 PM on June 17, 2015
Also known as proof of impossibility, himself being the exact responsible party by admission.
If you can dismiss Snowden as a 'narcissist', it means you don't have to consider the possibility that he acted out of conscience
Or the opposite order.
posted by Brian B. at 6:07 PM on June 17, 2015
If a narcissist does something that improves the world, then yay narcissism.
posted by JHarris at 7:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 7:38 PM on June 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, Snowden and Greenwald are morally obligated to provide a Proof of Impossibility or accept blame for the death of field agents. Well I'm glad that's settled.
posted by lodurr at 4:34 AM on June 18, 2015
posted by lodurr at 4:34 AM on June 18, 2015
So, Snowden and Greenwald are morally obligated to provide a Proof of Impossibility or accept blame for the death of field agents. Well I'm glad that's settled.
Again, morality is elusive here. Only if they were Putin's spies would they be acting morally, and not just from self-interest. Turning crime and terrorism surveillance over to private firms who may or may not be owned by foreign governments is not a moral victory for anyone in the US, except to a libertarian who advocates corporatismopposed to public governance.
posted by Brian B. at 6:42 AM on June 18, 2015
Again, morality is elusive here. Only if they were Putin's spies would they be acting morally, and not just from self-interest. Turning crime and terrorism surveillance over to private firms who may or may not be owned by foreign governments is not a moral victory for anyone in the US, except to a libertarian who advocates corporatismopposed to public governance.
posted by Brian B. at 6:42 AM on June 18, 2015
Only if they were Putin's spies would they be acting morally...
So, if they acted from conscience, out of professional ethics, or due to a sense of duty, they would not be acting morally?
posted by lodurr at 7:23 AM on June 18, 2015
So, if they acted from conscience, out of professional ethics, or due to a sense of duty, they would not be acting morally?
posted by lodurr at 7:23 AM on June 18, 2015
So, if they acted from conscience, out of professional ethics, or due to a sense of duty, they would not be acting morally?
Yes, they would be acting morally, as foreign spies. We finally agree on something.
posted by Brian B. at 7:27 AM on June 18, 2015
Yes, they would be acting morally, as foreign spies. We finally agree on something.
posted by Brian B. at 7:27 AM on June 18, 2015
We finally agree on something
So, you concede one point, then add a conditional I never agreed to, and suddenly we agree on something? That's some sleight of hand, there. No, not gonna play that.
posted by lodurr at 7:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, you concede one point, then add a conditional I never agreed to, and suddenly we agree on something? That's some sleight of hand, there. No, not gonna play that.
posted by lodurr at 7:37 AM on June 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
So, you concede one point, then add a conditional I never agreed to, and suddenly we agree on something? That's some sleight of hand, there. No, not gonna play that.
You implied that acting from conscience, professional ethics, and a sense of duty, somehow excluded foreign spies. It does not. It always excludes traitors, however. And I don't remember conceding anything, as I haven't changed my mind on anything in this thread (but thanks for crediting me with being least imaginative).
posted by Brian B. at 4:37 PM on June 18, 2015
You implied that acting from conscience, professional ethics, and a sense of duty, somehow excluded foreign spies. It does not. It always excludes traitors, however. And I don't remember conceding anything, as I haven't changed my mind on anything in this thread (but thanks for crediting me with being least imaginative).
posted by Brian B. at 4:37 PM on June 18, 2015
On second read, you may think I conceded when I agreed with your implied definition of moral (duty, conscience, professional ethics). However, we seem to disagree on which spies might have these qualities (loyal versus disloyal).
posted by Brian B. at 4:50 PM on June 18, 2015
posted by Brian B. at 4:50 PM on June 18, 2015
Well Brian, I don't know what to tell you. You seem to think that the fact that secrets were revealed means that Snowden was a foreign spy. You must have made a number of large, unstated assumptions to arrive at that definition.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I just wanted to clarify your position. I see now that's not really feasible.
posted by lodurr at 5:53 PM on June 18, 2015
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I just wanted to clarify your position. I see now that's not really feasible.
posted by lodurr at 5:53 PM on June 18, 2015
You seem to think that the fact that secrets were revealed means that Snowden was a foreign spy.
Just to be clear, a foreign spy would be a moral person compared to a traitor, based on duty, conscience, professional ethics. Snowden is unlikely a foreign spy by the evidence, therefore not a moral actor under the circumstances, traitor or not.
posted by Brian B. at 6:49 PM on June 18, 2015
Just to be clear, a foreign spy would be a moral person compared to a traitor, based on duty, conscience, professional ethics. Snowden is unlikely a foreign spy by the evidence, therefore not a moral actor under the circumstances, traitor or not.
posted by Brian B. at 6:49 PM on June 18, 2015
OK, so maybe that clarifies things: You seem to be saying either that EITHER:
If so, not understanding your reasoning at all. Those are certainly not mutually-exclusive categories, by any conventional definition of the terms used.
posted by lodurr at 5:38 AM on June 19, 2015
- Snowden is a traitor
- Snowden acted out of conscience or in accordance with professional ethics
If so, not understanding your reasoning at all. Those are certainly not mutually-exclusive categories, by any conventional definition of the terms used.
posted by lodurr at 5:38 AM on June 19, 2015
OR:
Snowden acted out of conscience or in accordance with professional ethics
Impossible. If Snowden was a foreign spy planted there by, say, Russia or some other country, then he would be acting in a professional way, displaying duty and conscience, untouched by our honorable expectations for him to act in American interests. Apparently he is not such a planted person, it would be farfetched to argue it, but the fact remains that spies can be moral by being loyal to their country, despite their daily lies and deceptions to others (but not to themselves). Whether Snowden is a traitor or not, remains to be seen with more evidence, but he betrayed his trust and attempted to have it both ways. He even admits to diversionary lies in the press when he touting his integrity. He's looking more and more confused and unsure of himself and his biggest fans are foreigners who have nothing to fear from US eavesdropping, it merely insulted their dignity.
So bottom line here is that Snowden is incompetent and decided to make himself in charge of national interests for awhile to bask in some fame and glory. Problem now seems to be that in his incompetent mindset, he didn't understand the high stakes, and the potential problems, and the domestic and international villainy of Russia and China and their aggression and advanced hacking spy programs. So the winds have shifted to undercut his message that we actually don't need surveillance on our vast open communication networks (as his moral mistake of stealing files and running now comes forward to haunt all Americans). Snowden's conscience is really to blame here. It wasn't informed by a competent knowledge of adversaries and concern for his own side, as he was hired and sworn, so it was easily confused, like a compass at the North Pole. His professional ethics amount to a textbook example of what not to do, and his duty remains to turn himself in and answer to his crimes. I have deliberately ruled out that Snowden is a double-agent, although that would be a nice fantasy, it would avoid all realistic discussion of responsibilities and reverse his fan base.
posted by Brian B. at 6:37 AM on June 19, 2015
Snowden acted out of conscience or in accordance with professional ethics
Impossible. If Snowden was a foreign spy planted there by, say, Russia or some other country, then he would be acting in a professional way, displaying duty and conscience, untouched by our honorable expectations for him to act in American interests. Apparently he is not such a planted person, it would be farfetched to argue it, but the fact remains that spies can be moral by being loyal to their country, despite their daily lies and deceptions to others (but not to themselves). Whether Snowden is a traitor or not, remains to be seen with more evidence, but he betrayed his trust and attempted to have it both ways. He even admits to diversionary lies in the press when he touting his integrity. He's looking more and more confused and unsure of himself and his biggest fans are foreigners who have nothing to fear from US eavesdropping, it merely insulted their dignity.
So bottom line here is that Snowden is incompetent and decided to make himself in charge of national interests for awhile to bask in some fame and glory. Problem now seems to be that in his incompetent mindset, he didn't understand the high stakes, and the potential problems, and the domestic and international villainy of Russia and China and their aggression and advanced hacking spy programs. So the winds have shifted to undercut his message that we actually don't need surveillance on our vast open communication networks (as his moral mistake of stealing files and running now comes forward to haunt all Americans). Snowden's conscience is really to blame here. It wasn't informed by a competent knowledge of adversaries and concern for his own side, as he was hired and sworn, so it was easily confused, like a compass at the North Pole. His professional ethics amount to a textbook example of what not to do, and his duty remains to turn himself in and answer to his crimes. I have deliberately ruled out that Snowden is a double-agent, although that would be a nice fantasy, it would avoid all realistic discussion of responsibilities and reverse his fan base.
posted by Brian B. at 6:37 AM on June 19, 2015
« Older A Message of Peace From a Survivor of Hell: A... | The boy who could see England Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:36 AM on June 16, 2015 [5 favorites]