Snowden Interview

[Razgovory]

Well terrorism and nuclear war can be somewhat analogous to house fires and a nuclear meltdown.  There has been a great deal of concern over nuclear meltdown in this country despite it never happening and very low chance of it actually happening.  If one occurs it would be catastrophic.  On the other hand house fires are fairly common, and have claimed quite a few lives, but are in potential less catastrophic.  Terrorism attacks have occurred, and will occur in the future.  You can't prevent all of them.

[garbon]

Well terrorism and nuclear war can be somewhat analogous to house fires and a nuclear meltdown.  There has been a great deal of concern over nuclear meltdown in this country despite it never happening and very low chance of it actually happening.  If one occurs it would be catastrophic.  On the other hand house fires are fairly common, and have claimed quite a few lives, but are in potential less catastrophic.  Terrorism attacks have occurred, and will occur in the future.  You can't prevent all of them.

True. 9/11 was a house fire.

[Monoriu]

The only thing I'm interested in is whether Mr Snowden has any opinion on the hospitality, acommodations and food of Hong Kong. 

[DGuller]

If garbon was shot at while walking home, but wasn't hit, and then got a paper cut once home, he would obviously be more worried about the danger paper brings.

[garbon]

Love seeing the trivialization of deaths going on. 9/11 is now a paper cut?

[DGuller]

Love seeing the trivialization of deaths going on. 9/11 is now a paper cut?

Compared to the scale of destruction that the war brings, yes.  Or compared to the scale of destruction that an over-reaction to 9/11 brought just to ourselves, for that matter.

[garbon]

The scale of destruction from domestic surveillance?

[DGuller]

The counter-productive over-reaction to 9/11 wasn't limited to domestic surveillance, unfortunately.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with this Edward Lucas piece:

Snow Job
It's time to blow the whistle on Edward Snowden.
By EDWARD LUCAS January 28, 2014
LONDON
Anyone who has seen the Bourne Identity, or scores of similar Hollywood films, finds Edward Snowden a familiar character. The fugitive insider is the star. The rogue agency is the villain in pursuit. By the closing credits, the hero will be vindicated, thanks to media coverage and belated congressional scrutiny. He gets the girl. Generals James Clapper and Keith Alexander—or their screen counterparts—take a perp walk.

It is easy to go along with that narrative, particularly if you are a journalist. Our trade instinctively sides with David, not Goliath. We thrill to the idea of disclosing secrets. We flinch at any constraint on press freedom. The thought of British spooks attacking a Guardian computer with an angle-grinder in the name of safeguarding secrets that have already been copied and stashed elsewhere seems as grotesque as it is pointless.

But I disagree. The theft and publication of secret documents, as my new book, The Snowden Operation, argues, is not a heroic campaign but reckless self-indulgence, with disastrous consequences. Snowden and his accomplices deserve censure, not applause.

Snowden claims the moral high ground. In a recent softball interview with German television, he claimed that the National Security Agency was involved in scandalous industrial espionage. In a live Q&A on his supporters' website, he decried "unaccountable senior officials authorizing these unconstitutional programs." His revelations continue, most recently via NBC and the Guardian, claiming among other things that the NSA uses the "Angry Birds" video game to track its targets (though closer scrutiny of the material suggested a different story).

The furor is misleading, though. In judging the action of whistle-blowers, three criteria apply. They must have clear and convincing evidence of abuse. Publishing the information must not pose a disproportionate threat to public safety. And the leak must be as limited in scope and scale as possible. Snowden failed all three of these tests.

The documents published thus far do not depict a rogue agency. They indicate—with partial, out-of-date and ambiguous evidence, mostly consisting of out-of-context presentation slides—that the NSA has plenty of flaws. How could it not? Like other government agencies and bureaucracies, it pushes the limits of its regulatory, political and judicial constraints. That is not surprising. Like people everywhere, NSA officials brag. They make mistakes (and get disciplined for them). Again, not too surprising.

To justify even a limited breach of secrecy, Snowden would need to prove something far more: evidence of systematic, gross wrongdoing, based on wilful contempt for judicial, legislative and political oversight. In such circumstances, the actions of a Daniel Ellsberg can be justified.

But nothing published by Snowden shows that. The NSA revealed in these documents looks nothing like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. And Barack Obama, for all his faults, is not Richard Nixon, using the power of the state to go after his domestic enemies. On the contrary: The United States has put the most elusive and lawless part of government—intelligence—into the strongest system of legislative and judicial control anywhere in the world. Some want it still stronger (I think it's too cumbersome and intrusive). But such questions are for the political process to settle. They do not justify catastrophic and destructive leaking.

The Snowdenistas' second line of defense is that they have at least sparked a debate. But a public discussion, and limited reforms, on issues such as the use of National Security Letters (secret FBI orders to force people and businesses to cooperate with law enforcement), the privacy risks of warehousing metadata and whether "zero-day" exploits (vulnerabilities in computer hardware and software) should be instantly patched or exploited for espionage—are limited benefits, not overwhelming ones. They do not justify catastrophic damage either. The question of whether we house telephone metadata at the NSA or house it at tech companies is not exactly the difference between tyranny and freedom.

Nor does impact alone justify the actions of the Snowdenistas' media accomplices. Journalism operates in a moral framework. Every potential story has a source and an effect. A responsible editor considers both—and not just the sizzle of the material itself. Simply arguing that a story will interest the public betrays the media's claim to be taken seriously. The defense that there is no point turning down a scoop because another outlet will publish it is even more fatuous.

The Snowdenistas have not only failed to prove that the NSA is out of control, or that it intrudes on Americans' personal privacy. They have also published material that has nothing to do with these issues. Why is it in the public interest to reveal how honest, law-governed countries spy on corrupt, authoritarian ones? The Snowden revelations about Norwegian and Swedish intelligence cooperation with the NSA against Russia, published by the Dagbladet newspaper in Oslo and Swedish television, respectively, are the most glaring example of the thoughtlessness of the Snowden approach. These countries have every reason to be worried about Russia. Their agencies operate under democratic control – and with strong public support. But for the Snowdenistas, the only thing that matters is that they cooperate with the NSA, the Great Satan of the intelligence world. It is worth noting that America is at the heart of the world's only successful no-spy agreements, with its close allies – notably Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. A list of countries that would trust Germany or France not to spy on them would be rather shorter.

Other disclosures are similarly hard to justify. Why is it in the public interest to reveal how the NSA intercepts e-mails, phone calls and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan, as the Washington Post did, or to show that the agency is intensifying scrutiny on the security of that country's nuclear weapons? Snowden even revealed details of how the NSA hacks into computers and mobile phones in China and Hong Kong—hardly whistleblowing stuff.

It is fatuous for Snowden's allies to say that they are keeping the stolen material safe from hostile intelligence agencies. Few outsiders would suggest they have the skills or knowledge necessary to do so. With equal fatuity, they assert that they redact the published material so as not to breach security. How can they possibly know what will be damaging and what may be harmless? In any case, their technical ability seems not to extend even to deleting an agent's name from an Adobe Acrobat file.

Snowden's leaks have weakened Western security relationships, corroded public trust, undermined the West's standing in the eyes of the rest of the world and paralyzed our intelligence agencies. The Snowdenistas seem oblivious to this. Like the anti-nuclear campaigners of the 1980s, or the anti-capitalist protestors of more recent years, they see Western faults with blinding clarity, but forget that we have enemies and competitors. When we stumble—or are tripped—they advance.

All this neatly and suspiciously fits the interests of one country, Russia—which just happens to be where Snowden arrived in such curious circumstances, and now lives in such strange secrecy. Based on 30 years of experience dealing with friendly and hostile intelligence in the Cold War and afterwards, I am stunned that colleagues who are so extraordinarily paranoid about the actions of their own governments are so trusting when it comes to the aims and capabilities of the Russian authorities. (Scanty clues, which I detail in the book, suggest that Snowden lives either in or near the Russian foreign intelligence headquarters in Yasenevo in southern Moscow.)

The political agendas of the most ardent Snowdenistas—people such as the bombastic Brazil-based blogger Glenn Greenwald, the hysterical hacktivist Jacob Appelbaum and the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange—cloak extreme and muddled beliefs in the language of privacy rights, civil liberties and digital freedoms—a naive and one-sided attitude exemplified by the Norwegian Socialist Left Party's nomination of Snowden for the Nobel Peace prize. To expose and attack the security and intelligence services of democracies, while sheltering in the capital of a country that habitually menaces its neighbours, is an odd way of promoting world peace. A political party based on these quasi-anarchist, nihilist ideas would get nowhere. Yet they are bringing about the greatest peacetime defeat in the history of the West.

My argument does not rest on whispers from the shadows: It is based on publicly available facts, plain for everyone to see. Snowden and the Snowdenistas are not on noble crusade; they at best "useful idiots," at worst engaged in sabotage and treason. Someone should make a Hollywood film about it.

Edward Lucas is senior editor at the Economist. He tweets as @edwardlucas. His new book, the Snowden Operation, is available at amazon.com.

I also thought this piece on the politics of Snowden, Greenwald and Assange quite interesting:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe

[Berkut]

Hits the nail squarely on the head.

I am continually amazed at the Wests ability to hamstring itself time and again. You see it with Snowden, you see it with how the liberal world looks at American military power, etc., etc.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks for posting that Jake.  Interesting read.  I wish the interviewer had acting more like an interviewer and less like a soft ball pitcher lobing slow ones for Snowden to hit out of the park.

As just one example.

At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here in Russia.

The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be fully safe until these systems have changed

.


Why the passive voice question?  He should have asked Snowden directly "did you give the Russians classified material in exchange for asylum?"  It is interesting that even with the way this question was worded, Snowden didnt answer it.  He talked about how he obtained the information.  He didnt answer the underlying question of whether he cut a deal with the Russians.  He did do a good job of simply repeating the narrative of the little guy fighting the big bad for the good of all and the interviewer let him do it. 

[Berkut]

Thanks for posting that Jake.  Interesting read.  I wish the interviewer had acting more like an interviewer and less like a soft ball pitcher lobing slow ones for Snowden to hit out of the park.

As just one example.

At the very end you ended up in Russia. Many of the intelligence communities suspect you made a deal, classified material for Asylum here in Russia.

The Chief of the Task Force investigating me as recently as December said that their investigation had turned up no evidence or indications at all that I had any outside help or contact or had made a deal of any kind to accomplish my mission. I worked alone. I didn't need anybody's help, I don't have any ties to foreign governments, I'm not a spy for Russia or China or any other country for that matter. If I am a traitor who did I betray? I gave all of my information to the American public, to American journalists who are reporting on American issues. If they see that as treason I think people really need to consider who do they think they're working for. The public is supposed to be their boss not their enemy. Beyond that as far as my personal safety, I'll never be fully safe until these systems have changed

.


Why the passive voice question?  He should have asked Snowden directly "did you give the Russians classified material in exchange for asylum?"  It is interesting that even with the way this question was worded, Snowden didnt answer it.  He talked about how he obtained the information.  He didnt answer the underlying question of whether he cut a deal with the Russians.  He did do a good job of simply repeating the narrative of the little guy fighting the big bad for the good of all and the interviewer let him do it. 

What is worse is that he makes zero allowance for the fact that he was able to do what he did only because he was an employee of the intelligence services. He took a job and was paid money in return for agreeing to a certain set of standards and rules about how he would treat the information that job gave him access to. He isn't a journalist, or some private citizen who stumbled upon some critical information, he is a straight up traitor, liar, and thief who used his position and trust to sell out to China and Russia.

If he thought that what he found out AFTER accepting the job was such an egregious violation of the public trust that it had to be exposed, there are many ways that could be done within the bounds of US law. The US is not some totalitarian state run outside the rule of law, such that there are no legitimate means of redress. The idea that he needs "asylum" in nations like China and Russia is simply Orwellian in its doublespeak.

He is a traitor, through and through.

[Kleves]

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

[The Minsky Moment]

They missed some outtakes.

Mr. Snowden, how does it feel to be standing up for truth and justice?  Does that provide you with consolation

It does - it is what heeps me going.  It's difficult being so far from home having to eat caviar and drink fine wines every night at KGB Headq . . . I mean my hotel.  And it is hard to be the most important and influential critic of governmental abuse on the planet, especially with President Obama making me public enemy number 1 and sending his trained assassin Matt Damon after me.  But then I remember how important I am and feel better.  I know that I am all that stands between the peoples of the free world and the evil NSA goons in their underground lair.

Many have observed that you are quite attractive.  Would you agree you have dreamy eyes? 

That's very nice of you to say.  But I wouldn't want my physical attractiveness to distract people from the real message - that I am a courageous and daring crusader for righteousness.

Is there anything else that ordinary Germans have to be concerned about?

Yes its is important to realize that the NSA microwave technology records in real time every single thing every person in the world is thinking.  Then, using the zxPerfectMalarkey! protocol, the NSA and its associated agencies have the ability to run a search on any individual in the world that currently exists or might exist in the future and know everything they have done or will do.  Of course, I can't provide you with the secret documents that prove the existence of those capabilities, that would be irresponsible.  It is up to responsible media outlets to decide what is safe to release.  And by responsible media outlets I mean some unhinged ex-blogger hanging out in Brazil.

  Do you think you will win the Nobel Peace prize unanimously or will some members of the jury be intimidated by the NSA into voting against you? 

I hope they will do the right thing.  But really it doesn't matter.  It's not about me.  It's about putting an end to government abuses by virtue of my bravery, skill and persistance.

[The Brain]

Pretty rich for America to talk about traitors.