Former NSA Boss: This Leak Teaches The World That America Can't Keep Secrets
from the no,-actually,-the-opposite dept
We've been trying to understand why the NSA and its supporters are both trying to play down the seriousness of the leak, while also claiming that it's incredibly dangerous, and I think we may finally have an explanation from former NSA and CIA boss Michael Hayden, who has given the most bizarre explanation yet:“It informs our adversaries. It puts American companies at risk internationally for simply complying with our laws,” said Mike Hayden, a former director of the NSA and a former director of the CIA. "It teaches practically everyone in the world—sources, liaison services—that America can’t keep secrets."Actually, I think it teaches the exact opposite. It teaches everyone that the US does keep secrets -- massive, privacy-destroying secrets that certainly appear to be in conflict with the basic principles of the 4th Amendment. And, the idea that it puts American companies at risk for "simply complying with our laws" is ludicrous. If they were simply complying with our laws, then there would be no cause for concern when the details were revealed. Laws and compliance with laws shouldn't be a secret. The problem is that because the interpretation of the laws were mostly secret, most people did not believe that this level of surveillance was really happening. So, yes, it puts American companies at risk, but the reason is because of the broad overreach of our government and the intelligence community (including the time when Hayden was in charge of large sections of it).
Separately, that same report notes that within the NSA, people are freaking out:
The impact of the leak inside the NSA has been enormous. “There is complete freakout mode at the agency right now,” one former intelligence officer tells The Daily Beast.If this was no big deal and just the revelation of a basic internal government computer system to deal with statutorily authorized data collection, then why would they be freaking out so much?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: edward snowden, michael hayden, nsa, nsa leak, nsa surveillance, secrets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Partisanry activate!
There's a few contexts that need to be made here. Michael Hayden represents the richest people in the world. The CIA has long been used to depose democracy for the proliferation of American corporations. The NSA has worked to protect the richest members of society. So when he's talking about America, he's specifically talking about a small cabal of people that have what I should term a "shadow democracy". It's not a democracy where the public is served, it's one that only goes to the people with the most money to buy it. Most would call it crony capitalism, but there's plenty of synonymous words for it.
Now let's put out there that American corporations have a lot of influence in the government. We're criticizing a government that isn't put there to protect the American public. We should be asking who it is protecting and why has it decided to do so in an undemocratic manner.
No one that I know of would want the government spying on them. No one seriously thinks that the government should be able to snoop on everyone. Sure, we can use the buzzword of terrorist, just as Communist was the big one in the 50s and 60s or Reds in the 30s. But spying on ALL citizens in a large vacuum? Secret courts? Secret documents saying a person is guilty? No ability to defend oneself from unjust prosecution?
Kafkaesque courts that deprive you of your life and liberties with vague guidelines?
This is not how to run a society. We have a military-industrial-Congresso-complex that harms the rights of its citizens and forces through laws which protect certain Americans. Congress passes the laws, the military and CIA execute them, and the president signs off on them. That isn't a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
I find it stunning that this is one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on. This was dangerous to America. How? It's like everyone just totally forgot that the public they represent wouldn't want these impeachments on the Constitution.
And people are letting them do it. There's a lot to be lost if this continues. People's freedoms and liberties should be far more important than false securities of people in very high positions of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He almost got it right. Just change the last two words: be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was right the first time.
The goal is to justify being becoming more secretive... isn't it ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The intellegence community deals with secrets. How are we supposed to keep intelegence supplied by foriegn actors secret if we can't keep our own data classified. It jepordizes the intelegence sharing agreements we have with every allied nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then the federal government shouldn't have jeopardized it by overreaching so horribly that a whistleblower had to blow his whistle.
Whatever damage was done to the government's trustworthiness was self-inflicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
When you latch onto to a topic, you really latch on! Get those clicks, Mikey! But whatever you do, don't slow down and discuss anything on the merits with anyone. Never discuss your beliefs! Yeah! Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You ought to have that examined, mate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Based on internet averages, techdirt.com is visited more frequently by males who are in the age range 18-24, have no children, received some college education and browse this site from school.
Schools out for summer. The kids have gone to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LoL
Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!
Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!
Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!
Dumb! Dumb! Dumb! Dumb!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Though to be fair to him, even though he is somewhat rabidly right-wing by European standards, he does provide an external eye on some of your madnesses, like your Gun Religion.
And you obviously need an external eye kept on you, because it sure as hell wasn't American media exposing all this, or the truth about non-WMDs, etc!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
Milky Milky Milky
When you latch onto to a topic, you really latch on! Get those clicks, Mikey! But whatever you do, don't slow down and discuss anything on the merits with anyone. Never discuss your beliefs! Yeah! Techdirt!
I guess he's has played out the unfortunate death of Aaron Swartz and is now moving on to the next big thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amendment this
This reminds me of your parroting and then sticking up for the idea that copyright somehow violated the first amendment. It seems you have a bit of a problem with the constitution from time to time. I guess you aren't comfortable with the idea that the amendments cut both ways.
The CNN Piers Morgan show had some very interesting information on all of this, and pretty much everyone agreed that while the Prism deal may appear on the surface to be a bit invasive, there really isn't anything there that violates anyone's rights, and certainly nothing actionable.
I have to figure that this is going to fizzle out like the TSA thing once the number of Google searches on the subject drops, you will just stop talking about it and move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: amendment this
You are going to make claims that you will regret later again dude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: amendment this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: amendment this
I can see that opinion and understand it. I do want to be able to say what I give away rather than having my communications monitored and recorded by the government I am supposed to trust. In this case, I do not agree to this abuse of power and recognize that my government doesn't care.
As I now understand you don't care either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: amendment this
It's a problem when the NSA reads your email but you're ok with google doing it?
It's ok that Facebook sells your data through beacon so advertisers can see who your friends are, but for the NSA to build the same network is aborant.
Same data you provide to farmville, the NSA collected. Almost every facebook game asks for access to your friends list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: amendment this
If someone is OK with google scanning their emails, that's their decision. It doesn't mean they should be OK with anyone else scanning their emails.
Also, there's a huge difference between consenting to surveillance and being surveilled without your consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: amendment this
How so? From what I've seen, the issues being brought up relate to how the constitution is being used. Though, you seem bent on appealing to a broken system of law, instead of contemplating ways in which it can be improved.
"I guess you aren't comfortable with the idea that the amendments cut both ways."
You're avoiding the question as to whether or no tit's a good idea they can cut both ways.
"The CNN Piers Morgan show had some very interesting information on all of this, and pretty much everyone agreed that while the Prism deal may appear on the surface to be a bit invasive, there really isn't anything there that violates anyone's rights, and certainly nothing actionable."
This is another issue. you have a larger crowd saying that PRISM is invasive and then you have a few people saying it isn't. Who's more in the right?
By the way, I wouldn't take my opinions from a show run by a former tabloid editor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generals
Wikipedia: Michael Hayden (general)
I expect Gallup's annual "Confidence in Institutions" poll results to come out any day now. I predict that those results will be fairly similar to last year's. That is, about 3/4 of Americans are confident in the military, while maybe only 1/6 have confidence in Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May I shout "SILENCE"?
Of what? Simply informing them is bad enough? To prevent that, we would have to forbid all communication with the outside world. And with anyone within our borders who might be an adversary.
Mike Hayden might North Korea too liberal for his tastes.
(But more likely his words just don't mean anything.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't keep secrets
Including secrets which were never theirs in the first place. Who is going to do business with USA companies, if it means their secrets will be stolen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In another few weeks, if the system works the way it was designed, the average person will have forgotten about this or will have concluded that it was the work of a disgruntled NSA employee. For the rest of us that remember and believe, we will become the next round of conspiracy kooks, to be shunned or locked away in padded rooms for everyone's safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secrets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On keeping secrets secret
People are unwilling to keep a secret when they believe the secret is hiding something wrong that should be exposed to the bright light of day -- because it is in the people's best interest to expose the secret far and wide. For love of country.
Examples of the former:
* that some particular new secret weapon system exists
* that some particular intelligence gathering capability exists
* that some particular capability of dirty tricks exists
Examples of the latter:
* that some weapon system is being misused to murder innocent people
* that some intelligence capability is used to spy on citizens in a free country whose rights against such snooping are guaranteed in its constitution
* that some dirty tricks are being used against particular individuals / groups for purely political reasons
I'm sure other examples exist of secrets that should be exposed. Corruption is one. In the past people who exposed secrets that should be exposed were called whistleblowers instead of being called spies, terrorists and traitors.
A conspiracy of traitors once created a treasonous document entitled The United States Declaration of Independence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On keeping secrets secret
> individuals / groups for purely political reasons
. . . and commercial reasons sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On keeping secrets secret
(If it's any consolation, some of my ancestors were 'treasonous' to the English crown long before you guys - the Jacobite rebellions of 1716 and 1745. The difference was, we lost...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wyden Statement Responding to Director Clapper’s Statements About Collection on Americans
“Wyden Statement Responding to Director Clapper’s Statements About Collection on Americans”, June 11, 2013
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all secrets should be or stay secret.
That's one of those factors in morals. I'd much rather have someone with me that can't keep the secret that someone is trying to kill me than the person who can keep that secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You that saying
Well guess what General, that's a two-way street. And boy does the NSA LOVE to hide (especially considering that before 2001, the rest of the US Government denied it even existed).
National Security reasons? Yeah, we get it. But the excuse of "trust us, we're the good guys" just doesn't fly anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nor should it, beyond basic military intelligence and short-term activities. We frequently beat our chests in this country and bill ourselves as the "most free nation on Earth," but if we want to live up to that, we need the most transparent government, and the most well-informed public. Such programs as the one Snowden exposed do not aid in that goal, and should be exposed accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course the NSA is freaking out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simply complying with our laws?
maybe change the laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama's Open and Transparent Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]