Greenwald On The Reporting Of The NSA's Recent Denials: So, Now We Trust The Liars?
from the maybe-it's-the-uniforms... dept
The NSA has taken a different approach to addressing the recent leaks involving the surveillance of foreign officials (and foreign citizens). Rather than limit itself to bland statements about oversight and legal framework, the NSA has chosen to claim the reporting is "misleading," if not flat out wrong. (The NSA and the administration are also taking turns throwing each other under the bus. While this is very amusing, it does very little to address the veracity of the leaks…)
Glenn Greenwald notes on his blog that these recent tactics have a hint of desperation about them, considering they were only deployed after news broke of the NSA's surveillance of high-level foreign officials.
[T]hese exact same Boundless Informant documents have been used by newspapers around the world in exactly the same way for months. The NSA never claimed they were inaccurate until yesterday: when it is engulfed by major turmoil over spying on European allies.The same documents the agency now claims are wrong or misleading have been public for months now, but it's only now, after the administration and Sen. Feinstein turned on the NSA, that Gen. Alexander and James Clapper are pushing the narrative that the documents themselves are being misinterpreted. Greenwald points out that both have been very careful not to deny the gist of the story itself (large scale collection of foreign phone metadata) but rather that the slides deployed by reporters in Spain and France are being misread.
The agency also made the dubious decision to implicate the foreign intelligence agencies that feed them information in hopes of undermining the reporting (as well as spreading the blame.
[T]he fact some of this data is collected by virtue of cooperation with a country's own intelligence service does not contradict our reporting. To the contrary: the secret cooperation between some European intelligence agencies and the NSA has been a featured part of our reporting from the start…The NSA seems to be running short on credible counter-arguments. Many representatives in DC simply aren't buying the lines about "oversight" and "legality" any more. Even its defenders have begun distancing themselves. So, it's decided to start casting doubt on those reporting on the leaks. Fair enough, I suppose. There are many rhetorical tactics it could deploy and seeding doubt by questioning the reporting is just one of them. The problem is that the press in general has been more than happy to give the NSA's responses a credibility they haven't earned.
The NSA spies extensively with (but rarely on) its four closest, English-speaking surveillance allies in the "Five Eyes" group: the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But for many European nations, the NSA cooperates with those nations' intelligence services but also spies on their populations and their governments without any such cooperation. That negates none of our reporting: it is simply a restatement of it.
NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander asserted yesterday that two "Boundless Informant" slides we published - one in Le Monde and the other in El Mundo - were misunderstood and misinterpreted. The NSA then dispatched various officials to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to make the same claim, and were (needless to say) given anonymity by those papers to spout off without accountability. Several US journalists (also needless to say) instantly treated the NSA's claims as gospel even though they (a) are accompanied by no evidence, (b) come in the middle of a major scandal for the agency at home and abroad and (c) are from officials with a history of lying to Congress and the media.Sadly, despite a very long history (that spans several administrations) of general untrustworthiness in both intelligence agencies and administrations themselves, government officials (even those speaking from under the cover of anonymity) are instantly given more credibility than any journalist, even when those officials have the most to gain by lying.
Journalists who consistently lie or are repeatedly inaccurate tend to be speedily expelled from the system. Government and intelligence officials who lie tend to remain employed, or at worst, exit via the revolving door, landing well-paying gigs in the private sector. Journalists have the most to lose, while government officials (especially when granted anonymity) have nearly nothing to lose, not if the misstatements and disinformation help shore up the narrative.
Knowing this, why would journalists take these statements at face value? Even worse, why would they help the government PR machine by publishing a narrative handed to them by a faceless, nameless "official" who has everything to gain from spinning the story? That's not journalism. That's "reporting."
Greenwald quotes the EFF's Trevor Timm on this baffling attitude.
"Oh, NSA says a story about them is wrong? Well, that settles that! Thankfully, they never lie, obfuscate, mislead, misdirect, or misinform!"Greenwald has taken a lot of heat for his lack of objectivity, but judging from this, more journalists need to be questioning statements coming from "officials" looking desperately for a place to plant their unreliable narratives. Four months of the NSA having to eat the words of each previous denial after each new leak should be more than enough proof that if its collective lips are moving, it's lying. At best, it's offering its least egregious "untruths."
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: glenn greenwald, nsa, nsa surveillance
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 ]
Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
None of you have any actual reason to trust Google. You just so desperately want to believe that part of the corporatocracy is on your side that you won't even hear the questions!
Google is definitely a SPY AGENCY. It's spying on ALL of us right now. There's NO form of spying that's "nice". Google is definitely unreliable because won't tell us how much spying it does, how, or what it does with our information. It's like someone who poses as your friend but rummages through all your stuff -- especially your underwear -- sneak copies contact list from your phone, looks through the lock box you keep under the bed and copies down everything, and uses anything and everything learned for his own benefit or amusement, possibly revenge if caught... GOOGLE IS A CREEPY SNEAK. All spies are.
And LYING is an inherent part of SPYING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
You have a government agency out of control, and you are worried with a private corporation that can be taken down with a simple court order?
You need to fix the government first before you fix anything else, you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
What you are doing isn't hilarious. It isn't witty. It isn't even particularly well executed. It is sad, pathetic and stupid.
You are "harassing" (not quite the right word, but I can't think of anything better) someone just because you disagree with him/her.
This says a lot about you...whoever you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
Mike, care to rebut with how many views TD gets per day? Also, roughly how many professional quality publications cite TD articles? I know there's a quote somewhere on this site about how the Wall Street Journal loves TD.
"What you are doing isn't hilarious. It isn't witty. It isn't even particularly well executed. It is sad, pathetic and stupid." So...? I'm not trying to be funny. I'm not trying to be witty. I'm trying to out-troll the troll. It is MEANT to be sad, pathetic and stupid. So thank you for telling me that I hit the mark. I'm merely repeating what the real OOTB says and jacking it up to 11.
"You are "harassing" (not quite the right word, but I can't think of anything better) someone just because you disagree with him/her."
I agree, not quite the right word, but we'll use it. Please, define for me harassment. I don't see how what I'm writing is harassment. If I were to draw a caricature of Obama with a speech balloon saying "Duh...I dunno what NSA is doing", would that be harassment? That's pretty much what I'm doing here. Besides, how do I harass someone whose identity I don't know? All we know is the online handle. That's it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
It's funny that you think that Mike has any obligation to cover you for your own asshattery.
Regardless, just check how many comments this site gets per day now, and compare that with a few years ago. It used to get articles with HUNDREDS of comments in the most hotly debated topics. Now, you get a handful of "I agree" comments. People started leaving somewhere around the time the insightful/funny/report buttons were introduced.
Regarding the rest, you can tap dance around it however you like it. The truth is, you're being a jackass ten times worse than out_of_the_blue ever was at any point. But I think that I understand. Sometimes it is hard to deal with viewpoints different than ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
This says a lot about you...whoever you are.
That's about a book right there..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Same with Google's denials! Think co-conspirators will just ADMIT it?
Plus, I'm AC, no harm done :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where did we see this behavioral pattern before???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since they didn't come at at the start with the honest admittance nor tried in any way to acknowledge wrongdoing, that nothing you hear from them can be believed. The very point they fail to acknowledge it was wrong tells you just what sort of mindset is guiding the whole outfit.
I understand that spying is done. I understand that pretty much all countries do it. But the NSA has exceeded it's authority and it's guide lines. Saying it is legal changes not one iota that bad laws can be revoked on constitutional grounds and are often done that way in court. That is why the administration has been so hell bent on using lack of standing and national security to prevent this from surfacing in court.
The cat is out of the bag with more following it. All the good will and creditability has been squandered and no one any longer believes any authority saying good about the NSA nor of government operations either. The polls certainly reflect this in their approval ratings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I know that you didn't put this forth as an excuse, but this line triggered a tangentially related thought).
Using that as a reason that it's OK for the US to do it is quickly becoming a pet peeve of mine.
For those who put this forth as an actual argument, my first thought is: what are you, 12? My second thought is connected to the fact that most of the people saying this are also people who believe in "American exceptionalism": if America is so exceptional, then why are we setting our moral compass according to what all the other nations do? Shouldn't we, I dunno, be exceptional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I understand that spying is done. I understand that pretty much all countries do it."
oh do you, indeed ? ? ?
please, here is a list of countries, tell me which ones you think are tapping into the main trunk lines of the telecommunications system...
...you know, 'cause 'they all do it'...
Afghanistan
Akrotiri
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Anguilla
Antarctica
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Ashmore and Cartier Islands
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas, The
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Bassas da India
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Bouvet Island
Brazil
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Christmas Island
Clipperton Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Colombia
Comoros
Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Republic of the
Cook Islands
Coral Sea Islands
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dhekelia
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Europa Island
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern and Antarctic Lands
Gabon
Gambia, The
Gaza Strip
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Glorioso Islands
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guernsey
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Holy See (Vatican City)
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Jan Mayen
Japan
Jersey
Jordan
Juan de Nova Island
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedo nia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Micronesia, Federated States of
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Navassa Island
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
Northern Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paracel Islands
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn Islands
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Reunion
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Helena
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Spain
Spratly Islands
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tromelin Island
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Islands
Wake Island
Wallis and Futuna
West Bank
Western Sahara
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2. great, that's a couple handful out of over 200 countries that even if i concede they are doing *some* level of spying, there is NO WAY they are 'all' (*cough*cough*) doing it at the level that uncle sam is doing, NO EFFING WAY...
so a couple handful = 'all' ? ? ?
3. WHOEVER is doing it to the extent WE ARE (WHICH IS NO ONE), are scumbags JUST LIKE US...
4. besides, as another poster pointed out above, i don't want my country performing to the lowest common denominator, i want it acting BETTER than is required for ethical behavior... presently, we are not...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It might well have been their response. When lies, threats and ambiguous statements are your response to revelations of a total disregard of basic human rights, you've got a serious integrity problem here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG ! spying on big shots with power and influence??? Holy crap, there's gonna be hell to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]