NSA Now Revealing A Lot More About What It Does Than Snowden Leaks Did; So Is That Harming America?
from the just-wondering dept
One of the key refrains that has come out from those who are unhappy about the revelation of details around the NSA's surveillance efforts is that Edward Snowden's leaks are somehow harmful to America. During hearings about all of this, NSA boss Keith Alexander claimed that "Americans will die" because of these sorts of leaks. But... between those same hearings and other revelations from the administration and Congress, we're actually learning much more about the various programs directly from the government, as information is now being "declassified." And, apparently, President Obama is asking the NSA and the Justice Department to look into declassifying even more. So while the initial shove to declassify information may have come via Snowden, the stuff that we're really learning about is coming through revelations following Snowden's leaks -- revelations that never would have happened without his leaks.So that raises a fairly basic question: if Snowden is somehow a traitor and putting lives at risk... why isn't the other information we're actually learning about the programs equally as problematic? The real answer seems to be that the information Snowden leaked does not harm us at all, but has simply revealed that the government has kept classified information from the American public that never should have been classified at all. The fact that only now are they looking to declassify it (and then doing so) shows pretty clearly that the information was improperly classified in the first place.
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: classified, edward snowden, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance, overclassification, secrets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is none
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thanks-obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To make the government open up more about the massive spying efforts that they have?
One cannot have it both ways-it's either total secrecy or transparency.
Sorry, NSA, you had it coming to you. Karma's a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yelling at my TV
My poor wife... I was in a foul mood the rest of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yelling at my TV
In the end, I just gave up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yelling at my TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yelling at my TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm looking at you NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Bradly Manning being charged with 34 violations one of which carries the death penalty.
2) IRS targeting conservative groups.
3) The Benghazi cover-up (which is actually 3 scandals in one)
- The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission.
- The changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video.
- The refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack.
4) The criminalizing of an NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden.
5) The Justice Department massive data gathering of Associated Press reporters' phone records as part of a leak investigation.
6) The Justice Department accusing Fox News reporter James Rosen of being a criminal for reporting about classified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.
I could actually go on but these are most of the major ones. Now tell me again exactly who is harming America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That list is already 6 entries too large for my tastes
Whether you all agree with the severity of legitimacy of these scandals (most of the ones regarding Benghazi in particular I think are absurd), the fact is that this list is already too large already. In fact, we should be pointing at and laughing at every single allegation on the list as another "whitewater-gate" scandal. Instead, we are either forced to defend them (in the cases of some people suddenly demonizing Snowden and praising the NSA spying efforts) or just staying passive about it (such as the Manning trial (a horrible miscarriage of justice).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing that galls me the most is David Gregory saying that Glenn Greenwald should be investigated for criminal actions.
Gregory who back in 2012 broke Washington DC law with the on air possession of a high capacity magazine. But because he was doing the governments bidding received a pass.
It would be interesting to look back and see what he had to say about the DOJ abuse of the AP and Fox news reporter James Rosen.
Just a guess I bet it did not support the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Context
Apart from some public support, what's the difference between Snowden's acts and a infiltrator working at the behest of a foreign power making embarrassing information public?
Should we just make it legal to publicly expose classified info, as long as a single person (the person doing the releasing) thinks the public should know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context
Should we just make it legal to publicly expose classified info, as long as a single person (the person doing the releasing) thinks the public should know?
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context
Ever read the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Context
Did you make it to the part where SCOTUS is in charge of making that call?
If there was a glaring Constitutional issue, why did Congress stand pat for years? They can pretend ignorance, but they all have access to details of those programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Context
If Congress doing something (or in the case nothing) could make something constitutional, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
ben's brain is stuck on "OBEY!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
ben's brain is stuck on "OBEY!""
And even if that were true, it would still be more mature than the "Government = Bad, lulz" position you fellows are pushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
I'm saying it's not up to you, or me, or Snowden to make that determination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context
Ummmm...how about a mass warrant for gathering information on people who have absolutely NO probable cause? Do you not understand what the heck you're talking about?
Let me help you to then, Step 1) Unilateral national warrant for gathering digital info, Step 2) Unilateral national warrant to search and/or seize anything the government deems "dangerous to public safety" from public buildings and corporations, Step 3) Unilateral warrants to search your private residences to insure the public that you don't have anything in your possession that could threaten their "safety".
"Whatever, that will never happen". Oh right...because it didn't happen in Germany in 1933, or in Continental America WHEN OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE THE STINKIN' THING INTO OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!
They had the FORESIGHT to protect US from our ridiculous government, who in turn is trying to make them out to be senseless individuals with "antiquated" ideals. Just like King George III did to those who made laws before him. Ohhhh yeah suuuuuure, tell them it's about their "safety" and they will get on hands and knees to thank you for stripping their rights to protect them from the boogeyman.
Grow a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Context
Was he a traitor for exposing classified information that harms American lives? Like Assange and Wikileaks?
Now why would the NSA tip around this hot roof when all they do is
a) in the spirit of the constitution of the USA
b) operating within the words of the law of the USA
c) not appearing to hide something more
d) not upsetting the citizens of the USA
The government must show the government is keeping everyone "safe" - without admitting that to do so is to take away the basic principles of American life and citizenship. And the NSA is in the dead center of a hurricane and doesn't want to budge for good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: out_of_the_blue on Jun 24th, 2013 @ 7:03am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And for providing classified info to people not cleared to view it.
I dont see anything about "harming America" on his charge sheet, so what is the point of your argument.
Also NSA officials are allowed to make statements and provide information, Snoden signed legal documents and made statements under oath that he understood he is NOT allowed.
So trying to build a defense for which he is not being charged is not that smart an idea, it would be better (by far) to actually build a defense claim that some how defends what he is being charged for !!! would you not think ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And did he steal, or infringe? Disney has me all confused on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And for providing classified info to people not cleared to view it.
I dont see anything about "harming America" on his charge sheet, so what is the point of your argument."
This actually made me giggle. Not really a high-level thinker are you?
"Also NSA officials are allowed to make statements and provide information, Snoden signed legal documents and made statements under oath that he understood he is NOT allowed."
What you clearly want (like the USG apparently) is to prevent whistle-blowing. And the only people who want to prevent whistle-blowing are people who know the public would not be happy with the info provided by whistle-blowers, i.e. people who know what they're doing is wrong, legally or otherwise. People like you who want to suppress knowledge of governmental misdeeds sicken me. You are an anathema to good democratic government process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NSA could not afford to its technology secret
If the NSA had continued to keep the details of their monitoring secret, it would only have been a matter of days before some Chinese company applied for patents covering the whole thing and required $billions in license fees. The risk was too great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only life he put at risk was his own-for daring to stare down the government over illegal activities.
Now we see what happens when you do such things-you get the government all pissed off and embarrassed by its' overreaction and floundering steps.
The government in turn, assumed that anything they asked for would be given to them, and they were shocked to find that they're not as above the law as they think.
Hong Kong said so: "Sorry, fill out the rest of the paperwork and come back when it's done."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple retoric.....Obama = dictator who may/may not have murdered US and non-US citizens without oversight and is now going after any and all whistleblowers that expose the hypocrisy and general evil of his administration.
As a side swipe they could promise to have a FULL and public financial investigation of Obama and Biden's personal wealth since they came to power.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It does not necessarily follow. Since Snowden revealed the program it is probably true that much of it no longer needs to be classified. At this point pretty much everybody assumes that the NSA is wiretapping anything that passes through the US. The government's argument is that before the revelations there were some people out there who did not take precautions and now will.
Declassifying now is pretty understandable if only so they do not have to continue doing crazy things like asking everybody with a security clearance to not look at the documents online.
The central point in this fiasco has always been whether it is appropriate for the government to do capture data on this scale based on the general warrants. Not telling the wiretapped person that he is being wiretapped is not exceptional, the problem here is the target is everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This country will go on without many government agencies because, at the end of the day, we are a nation of good people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legal smegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come, sign up now to surrender your rights!!!
Again, as I said before, tell everyone that you're stripping them of their rights to protect them...oh! And put in a little psychological snippet to say that it's "for the children", and they will bow down and thank you for saving them from the monsters in the closet.
It's like your parents grounding you for life to protect you from "the rapists" and "pedophiles" that you probably will never encounter. Same concept, now how does that sound to you? Not so romanticized anymore, is it?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
History
[ link to this | view in chronology ]