Do You Trust The Government Or Journalists More To Determine If Snowden's Docs Are Safe To Publish?
from the or-someone-else? dept
Nick Davies at The Guardian has an interesting article challenging those (including some competing UK newspapers) who have been arguing that it's somehow inappropriate for journalists to make the decision about whether or not Snowden's leaked documents can be revealed without revealing sensitive information that puts lives in danger. We've seen similar claims elsewhere, including in our comments, where some insist that it's preposterous to think that anyone other than the intelligence community can know for certain whether or not the documents are sensitive. Davies, however, makes the strong case that the government has a long and sordid history of hiding behind these kinds of claims to disguise highly questionable activity -- and, instead, it's the power of the press that is necessary to keep them honest.Davies also destroys the idea that politicians in charge of "oversight" can do an effective job:The official answer is that we should trust the security agencies themselves. Over the past 35 years, I've worked with a clutch of whistleblowers from those agencies, and they've all shared one underlying theme – that behind the screen of official secrecy, they had seen rules being bent and/or broken in a way which precisely suggested that the agencies should not be trusted. Cathy Massiter and Robin Robison, for example, described respectively MI5 and GCHQ pursuing politically motivated projects to spy on peace activists and trade unionists. Peter Wright told of MI5 illegally burgling its way across London "while pompous bowler-hatted civil servants in Whitehall pretended to look the other way". David Shayler exposed a plot both lawless and reckless by MI5 and MI6 to recruit al-Qaida supporters to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.
All of this was known to their bosses. None of it should have been happening. But the agencies in whom we are invited to place our trust not only concealed it but without exception then attacked the whistleblowers who revealed it.
These are all UK examples, of course. But we've seen the identical situation in the US as well. The over-classification problem in our government is well-documented and no one seems to want to fix it. Furthermore, stories of intelligence community abuses of power are well-known throughout US history. As for political oversight, the litany of stories we've had concerning Rep. Mike Rogers tells a different story altogether. He's supposedly in charge of oversight, but comes from an intelligence background and has shown, repeatedly that his focus is not on oversight, but on running cover to prevent real oversight of the intelligence community's actions.Would we do better to trust the politicians who have oversight of the agencies? It's instructive to look back from our vantage point, post-Snowden, to consider what was happening only two years ago when the government attempted to introduce new legislation which came to be known as the snooper's charter. If the oversight politicians are as well-informed as they claim, they must have known that this was in part a cynical attempt to create retrospective legal cover for surveillance tools that were already secretly being used, but they said nothing. And when parliament refused to pass that law, clearly indicating that there was no democratic mandate for those tools, they still stayed silent.
Politicians fall easy victim to a political Stockholm syndrome which sees them abandon their role as representatives of the people in favour of becoming spokesmen for the spooks. It was there in the 1970s when the New Statesman bravely exposed security lapses and financial corruption in GCHQ, only to face a prosecution orchestrated by a Labour attorney general; there again with Jack Straw describing in his autobiography how MI5 had spied on him and his family since he was 15 but declaring that he was "neither surprised nor shocked – this was the world we lived in"; and there again, of course, in the foreign secretary William Hague's bland presumption that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" from the systems of mass surveillance exposed by Snowden.
Journalists may not be perfect, but they certainly have a much better track record than either governments or politicians in making these kinds of determinations.
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: journalism, national security, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, public interest
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
who do I trust?
but I do know one thing, I trust the us government a lot less than I trust snowden. I haven't trusted 'traditional' journalists in years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who do I trust?
i don't 'trust' Big Media, but i 'trust' individual journalists: your bill moyers, your glenn greenwalds, your jeremy scahills, etc...
here is the thing: you should NEVER 'trust' your gummint, EVEN IN THE BEST OF TIMES...
these are not the best of times...
we 99% are propagandized, marginalized, and criminalized...
the 1% doesn't even make a pretense of 'needing' us for our labor any longer; most of us are expendable...
we are zombies, and don't know it...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PUBLISH ALL. -- Where's the evidence for ANY harm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBLISH ALL. -- Where's the evidence for ANY harm?
A) People will be rushing so fast to "one-up" everyone else that important details might be overlooked.
B) People will be flooded by so much information that many of them will ignore much of it.
C) Our Short Attention Span society will quickly fade the scandal from view.
The way they are doing it is good, because it allows people to process the data at a reasonable pace, keeps the data in the public consciousness a lot longer, and allows the debunking of the governments "least untruthful" statements piece by piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PUBLISH ALL. -- Where's the evidence for ANY harm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PUBLISH ALL. -- Where's the evidence for ANY harm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no brainer really...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was at one time that investigative reporting kept politicians fairly honest. None of them wanted to be on a front page expose. Now it's all syndicated news feeds with a vested interest in maintaining status quo.
You look at the Obama administration and you see a micromanaged public image machine. One that does not welcome uncomfortable questions into policies and actions. Instead the Obama machine only wants journalists reporting things that make them look good. If they are uncomfortable with a reporter, the reporter gets phone calls at the office cussing them out directly from the Obama administration offices. This has been reported on time and again. If uncomfortable enough the reporter and paper are removed from the White House News Reporting pool and replaced with another paper and reporter.
Almost at no time does Obama allow impromptu questions in news events. They are strictly scripted. Often no allowance is made for news reporters and the White House goes around them by publishing publicity photos and the like from it's own blogs rather than deal with reporters. Add to it the war on whistle blowers to prevent those that know where the skeletons are buried and you come up with things like the NSA revelations where it has been going on a long time but when faced with actual proof the citizens become very agitated over those actions.
At this point I no longer watch MSM news. I don't trust them to tell a real story. I sure as heck have plenty of proof not to trust the government as their long history of hiding the truth is what has made the Snowden revelations so shocking to the public. Sometimes I read the RT (which you just as well call Pradva) because you can depend on them to point out the worst actions in the worst possible way. Realizing they too have a bias that can be depended on at least it isn't covering up the faults. It may not be so quick to show you the good parts but you will be informed of some of the worst, provided you take what you read with a grain of salt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If its secret...
The only things that need to remain secret are all of the obvious stuff! We don't need to release every last detail on our latest stealth bombers, but there is no reason for us to hide how extensive our gubermint thugs has turned the Constitution into waste paper!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Least untruthful ... under oath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most knowledgeable = most dishonest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Untruthful before the court, too
A �substantial misrepresentation� to the court. For the third time in less than three years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One is the literal question raised by the headline: Which of the two would be better able to determine whether publishing a given document would be "safe"?
Another is more nuanced: Which of the two can more safely be trusted to make that determination honestly, without bringing in other factors?
There's also a third question: Once that determination has been made, which of the two is more likely to rely only on that determination when deciding whether to release the documents?
On the first question, I have to give it to the government. The skill, experience, other knowledge, and technical expertise they have and/or can call on far outstrips anything the journalists are likely to be able to bring to bear. The government does have the better ability to judge the likelihood of harm from the release of any given document.
On the second question, I have to give it to the journalists. There is no way the government as it is presently constituted (referring to the systems and mindsets that have built up over decades, not to any one political party or the like) can be relied on to be honest, even with itself, about whether any given document is safe to release. If nothing else, paranoia about being wrong would see to that.
On the third question, it's a bit closer, but again I have to give it to the journalists. While they're likely to also give consideration to such concerns as sensationalism and so forth, the government is almost guaranteed to take into consideration questions of politics, ass-covering, face-saving, and preservation of power, among many other factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust the government?
I don't even have to read the entire article to basically tell you what the security agencies can do. Every last LEO has done quite a lot of damage to democracy.
The CIA has usurped democracy all over the world. It's biggest usurpation was Iran.
The FBI usurps civil rights. There's the COINTELPRO program, their use of the code name "terrorist" to usurp the right of activists and then there's the entire throw people in jail mentality that is prevalent in all of the LEOs.
And don't get me started on the DoJ...
Then I can name a number of people who have used the power of their position in government to destroy public discourse...
Richard Nixon
E Howard Hunt
Edward Bernays
Murray Chotiner
James Clapper
Keith Alexander
Woodrow Wilson
George Bush
Barack Obama
Ronald Reagan
I could go on and on with other names thanks to the entire Watergate Scandal, the NSA scandal, the Espionage Act passed by Woodrow, Bush's usurpation of democracy, Obama's fourth term of Bush, and Reagan's Iran-Contra Scandal, but you see the point.
How can I trust the government when it does so much to destroy the public instead of help it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden a limited-hangout psyop to deflect attention from NSA/Cybercom domestic "e-torture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I trust them both equally
I trust them both about the same, which is to say not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust journalists? You're joking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA director admits to misleading public
�NSA director Keith Alexander admitted Wednesday that the Obama administration had issued misleading information.�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lesser of two evils
Modern day reporting on politics has turned into what has been accurately described as a flamewar. They will say and do anything and everything to wind up the populous and get those eyeballs glued to the screen. Nobody trusts them, so even if they release true information, nobody would recognize it.
If we only have those two options, and I can't think of a third, I'd go with the lesser of two evils, the journalists. The government will just mark everything as "eyes only" as proven by the debate we're having now. Journalists would probably release too much information, really putting people's lives in danger, but they'd at least release the information. These are the risks we must take for freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're both above reproach. Let's all drop our pants and be safe in the knowledge that they won't take advantage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do You Trust The Government Or Journalists More
"So when are you going to stop beating your wife?"
Journalists in a position of TRUST !
or would you rather trust an NSA employee who quits his job and runs away to Russia ?
Journalists are not generally considers pillars of society, or the public conscious. At least the Government is chosen by the people.
It's clear TD has deemed the US Government THE EVIL ENEMY, and right up there with Bin Ladin.
Of course the NSA should determine (as per the current law) what they tell about their activities, but it's its legal (and it is) why would they have to tell you anything ??
It has been argued that NONE of it is 'safe' to release, as it assists those who want to counter those methods.
If Snowden's Docs contain OPERATIONAL information (it appears it does) that information SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED AT ALL.
Not by some lowly Journo, and not by the NSA or the Government. You just don't tell the enemy how you are trying to fight them, or how you are trying to defend yourself against them.
How is a Journalist able to determine what is safe and what is not, when they cant even work out that NONE OF IT IS SAFE !!!!
Snowden and Manning want to fight their own little ideological war, and damn anyone else who gets in their way. People are killed because of this type of information, and it's not the person how leaks it who are generally killed.
But do they care ?? do they give a shit if their actions results in more deaths ?
You might be able to look at the information and see no issue, but in the right hands, that same information might be a powerful tool, and might make them (the enemy) more effective and help them.
How you can possibly tell what that information would be useful for in the wrong hands. (unless you are those hands).
IF manning's released Video of shootings are circulated around the Middle East on CD and used to incite hatred of the US, how is that not aiding the enemy ? It's a powerful recruitment tool. How is a UK Journalist able to determine that ? Or the US Gov. for that matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do You Trust The Government Or Journalists More
That you would support killing anyone just because is disturbing, but not surprising for a jackass of your negative number-level intelligence. Obviously solar panels weren't good enough and you'd want everyone to be spy-monitored instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do You Trust The Government Or Journalists More
No, I'd rather trust a government that broke the law and revoked his passport which made him "run away" to Russia in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can't trust the government, obviously
It's quite clear that the government (= the executive branch) needs to be held in check, and if parliaments can't do it, the public must.
Bureaucracy isn't just an organizational structure, it can be a form of government too, and it's one that's NOT compatible with democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trust is earned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The perfect example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]