Claims About Snowden's 'Harms' Based On Two Assumptions Unlikely To Be True

from the fud dept

There have been multiple attempts lately by the likes of James Clapper and Mike Rogers to insist that the Snowden leaks have created massive "damage" to the US and have put people at risk. Over at the Daily Beast, Eli Lake looks into those accusations and notes that they're based on two assumptions, neither of which are likely to be true:

But the DIA assessment is based on two important assumptions. First, it assumes that Snowden’s master file includes data from every network he ever scanned. Second, it assumes that this file is already in or will end up in the hands of America’s adversaries. If these assumptions turn out to be true, then the alarm raised in the last week will be warranted. The key word here is “if.”

On the first assumption, that he took every piece of data he ever touched, that's almost certainly not true. Snowden himself has detailed a few times how he carefully went through the documents to make sure that what he was sharing was limited and not too broad. In fact, in his very first interview he stated:

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."

And on the second question, Snowden's also made it fairly clear that he no longer has the documents and even US officials appear to be of the opinion that he never gave them to any foreign government. While there is the possibility that foreign agents have been able to get them from various reporters who have portions of the collection, there's still the first issue about what documents are actually included in all of this.

Either way, just the fact that officials are going around insisting that there's been tremendous harm based on two rather questionable assumptions shows just how far they're willing to go to fear monger about the whole situation when there's still been no actual evidence of any harm anywhere as a result of these leaks.

Filed Under: assumptions, dia, ed snowden, exaggerations, harm, nsa

Publishers Can't Seem To Celebrate The Ebook Boom Without Slipping In Odes To Copyright

from the not-quite-right dept

The BBC reports on the success of ebook sales in the UK, which are up by 188% compared to last year. This is great news for authors and e-commerce. Ebook reading devices have become increasingly easy to use and the online shops for ebooks are getting far more user-friendly by the day. Although I’m not fully converted myself yet (still unsure about the digital right management controls and the unnecessary high prices), about half the books I read are ebooks and most other documents I read are on tablets and computers. The non-believers are slowly but surely being proven wrong and the market is speaking for itself.

The piece by the BBC, which praises the market developments for consumers and authors alike, includes an odd quote, which seems more like pro-copyright lobby-speak and out of place in the article:

"The huge increase in digital sales shows how rapidly readers and publishers are embracing e-book reading," said Richard Mollet, the trade body's chief executive (Publishers Association, ed.). "Whether books are enjoyed physically or electronically, publishers will continue to invest in exciting authors and titles. They can do this because of the stability provided by the UK's robust and flexible copyright framework. This is why The PA is at the forefront of calls to government to ensure that copyright is not eroded and that creators' rights are protected and supported online."

It is surprising in several ways that Mr. Mollet mentions the copyright framework. First, if this is true under today's system, why is his association actively pushing for stricter, less flexible copyright laws? Second, why is the current copyright framework more suitable for book authors and not musicians and movie producers, whose lobbyists are standing in line to complain about the current system? And why does the journalist bother to mention this in the quote at all, when the whole article is a praise of the market adapting to consumer needs?

Let's face it, the copyright system, robust or useless, hardly comes into the equation concerning the recent success of the ebooks market. Ebooks are among the easiest things to pirate. In fact, it is very easy to download zipped files containing thousands of digitized books. Ebook publishers are thus effectively—and successfully—competing with an abundant free supply of their goods.

Fortunately for books publishers, they have had several valuable case studies from which they could learn, namely the decade-long failed attempts of the music and movie industries to cope with the advent of the internet. After wasting gazillions on litigation and lobbying, these industries came to understand that the user does actually spend money on media when it is made easy.

In short, success of content business models depends on the user experience you offer your customers, not more or less strict copyright regulation. It also seems very hypocritical for content lobbyists to praise the copyright system when the market is doing well, and blame the same system when the market is not performing to their wishes.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, ebooks, exaggerations, richard mollett, uk
Companies: publishers association