Russia Admits Its Strict Anti-Piracy Laws Aren't Working... So They'll Just Try Some More

from the definition-of-insanity dept

For years, we've pointed out the ridiculousness of how copyright maximalists are always screaming about the need for "anti-piracy" laws to stop infringement, which they insist is killing them. In the US, new anti-piracy laws are proposed (and often passed) every couple of years -- and the end result is always the same: infringement continues unabated. But rather than learn from that, and realize that a different approach is needed, maximalists always assume the answer is MOAR ENFORCEMENT!. Despite basically all of human history showing that enforcement is no real solution, including some rather detailed modern evidence, maximalists see enforcement/anti-piracy laws as the only hammer to deal with the infringement nail.

The latest example of this is in Russia, a country that the US attacked for years for its supposedly lax approach to dealing with copyright infringement. However, in the last year or so, Russia has massively ratcheted up its "anti-piracy" laws, giving the government incredible powers to censor sites that it deems infringing. And it's been using that law, demanding sites be blocked entirely by ISPs. Yet, it appears that both providers of authorized services and government officials (all the way up to Vladimir Putin) are admitting that the law simply hasn't been "working" to stop infringement or drive people to legitimate services.

But, rather than recognize that perhaps a different approach is needed, the Russians have apparently decided to double-down on the failed policy:

“It is necessary to consider additional steps to protect intellectual property rights,” Putin concluded.

Of course, it should be noted that there is also an ulterior motive in Russia. Putin and others long ago realized that copyright laws are an incredibly effective tool for attacking government critics, stifling dissent and censoring political opponents. And, even better, Russia knows that it can do this with US approval, because the US stupidly keeps demanding Russia do more to fight copyright infringement. So, they keep ratcheting up those laws... and then use them to stifle dissent and censor critics. But... none of it actually drives people to buy legitimate content. But I doubt the Russian government really cares, as that will just give them another excuse to ratchet up those censorship laws for other purposes.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, enforcement, free speech, russia, vladimir putin

Wacky Snowden Haters Pile On The Bandwagon Claiming Snowden Is Somehow To Blame For Russia In Crimea

from the wtf dept

So, over the weekend, the NSA's chief external propagandist, Rep. Mike Rogers, made the ridiculous claim that Ed Snowden was somehow to blame for Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine. It would appear that the usual crew of Snowden haters (who never seem to have any evidence beyond "hunches") have gleefully jumped onto that bandwagon, insisting that Snowden must be helping the Russians evade NSA surveillance. Based simply on (unproven) claims that the US intelligence community was somewhat taken by surprise by Russian moves in Crimea and Ukraine, folks like Joshua Foust and John Schindler -- both of whom have been leading the anti-Snowden conspiracy theories since about 3 seconds after Snowden was revealed -- are claiming that it's somehow obvious that Snowden must be working with the Russians to reveal the NSA's surveillance capabilities and how to get around them. Because apparently, Russian intelligence is so incompetent that they couldn't figure things out without the help of an American.

At best, these two seem guilty of quite an extreme form of confirmation bias. At worst, they seem to be pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories, based on absolutely nothing. The idea that Vladimir Putin and the FSB had to wait until Ed Snowden was effectively handed to them by the Americans pulling his passport (seems like Foust and Schindler conveniently forget that part...) in order to hide their plans to annex Crimea and get aggressive towards Ukraine seems positively unbelievable. However, it does show the extreme lengths some are willing to go to in order to smear Snowden based on no proof at all.

Update: Meanwhile, it appears that plenty of folks who actually work in intelligence say that Snowden has nothing to do with the events in Crimea.

Filed Under: crimea, ed snowden, john schindler, joshua foust, mike rogers, russia, ukrain

Mike Rogers Says Snowden's To Blame For Russian's Aggressive Actions Against Ukraine

from the being-talked-down-to-by-a-mouth-breather dept

Mike Rogers is still willing to spread his stupidity to any new outlet that will have him. Despite the NSA and FBI being unable to find any evidence that Snowden colluded with Russian intelligence, Rogers continues to insist the former analyst is a Russian spy.

Knowing that evidence (or lack thereof) has no bearing on Rogers' statements explains his most recent assertion, one that offers a bunch of speculation in service of linking the name "Snowden" with "bad things the Russian government is doing." (via Crooks and Liars)

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Sunday former National Security Agency contractor and fugitive Edward Snowden is “actually supporting in an odd way this very activity of brazen brutality and expansionism of Russia. He needs to understand that. And I think Americans need to understand that….”

How exactly is Snowden "supporting" the brazen brutality of the Russian government? Well, when pressed, Rogers merely reiterates his opening statement (equally as questionable) that "no counterintelligence official" believes "today" that Snowden is not under the influence of Russian intelligence. His follow-up non-explanation is nothing more than a suggestion that "we" (which presumably means the wide swath of supporters behind Rogers' blustery rhetoric -- also equally as questionable) need to determine when he fell under the spell of Russian intelligence in order to… well… it's not entirely clear.

Rogers continues by saying he doesn't believe anything Snowden has said about his relationship to the Russian government and, mistaking his personal opinion for solidly researched facts, claims that because Snowden "lied" about his situation, there can be no doubt that he is pretty much directly responsible for Russia's aggressive response to the situation in Ukraine.

By the time Rogers finishes talking, we're all a little dumber -- except maybe Mike Rogers, who apparently hasn't hit rock bottom in terms of wild speculation and baseless accusations. Rogers claims everyone who matters (the unnamed but totally legitimate "counterintelligence officials") agrees with his version of Snowden's activities and motivations.

Sure, you can find some people who think Snowden is a spy or being operated by Russian intelligence (but they're few and far between), but one of those making this assertion is the someone who thinks a blog filled with his own tweets is defamatory. While other officials have made comparisons to spies when discussing Snowden's actions, few have been willing to claim (at least not publicly) that the former analyst is now a tool of Russian intelligence.

If the NSA wants to save itself, it may want to find a way to gag Rogers, who seems willing to undermine any respect the agency reclaims while turning himself into a pro-intelligence caricature.

Filed Under: crimea, ed snowden, mike rogers, russia, ukraine

Russia Using Internet Censorship Laws To Block Websites Of Opposition Candidate, Independent Media

from the because-that's-how-they-roll dept

A few years ago, we noted that Russia was pushing new internet censorship laws, officially to "protect the children." Of course, everyone knew that was a bogus reason, and the laws were used to silence reporters who were critical of the government as well as a bunch of blogs. It appears that the political censorship is ratcheting up even more with reports that the the blog of opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been blocked, along with a number of independent news sites.

That alone began getting some attention, and it appears that the Russian government followed it up by trying to play whac-a-mole with a variety of news sites, even taking down access to a radio station's website because it had posted a mirror of Navalny's blog.

The reason given for blocking the other media websites was that the "websites contain calls to illegal activity and participation in mass events that are conducted contrary to the established order." As for the blocking of Navalny's blog, which is updated by his wife, the government is claiming that since Navalny is under house arrest with orders not to communicate publicly, this blog violates that order, and therefore it's appropriate to censor it.

These excuses ring rather hollow for obvious reasons. And so far it certainly seems like this latest attempt at widespread censorship is, of course, calling a lot more attention to both the censorship attempt as well as what it was they're so eager to hide. In fact, Russians appear to be quickly routing around the censorship, because that's what you have to do in a country that regularly tries to censor what you can read.

Filed Under: alexei navalny, censorship, free speech, journalism, media, russia, websites

Snowden Gives Testimony To European Parliament Inquiry Into Mass Surveillance, Asks For EU Asylum

from the impressive,-as-ever dept

A few weeks back, we reported that the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) committee planned to send some questions to Edward Snowden as part of its inquiry on electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens. He's now replied to these, prefacing them with a short statement (pdf -- embedded below.) Although there are no major revelations -- he specifically states that he will not be disclosing anything not already published -- it does contain many important clarifications and interesting comments. For example, he confirms that:

The NSA granted me the authority to monitor communications world-wide using its mass surveillance systems, including within the United States. I have personally targeted individuals using these systems under both the President of the United States' Executive Order 12333 and the US Congress' FAA 702. I know the good and the bad of these systems, and what they can and cannot do, and I am telling you that without getting out of my chair, I could have read the private communications of any member of this [LIBE] committee, as well as any ordinary citizen. I swear under penalty of perjury that this is true

Before moving on to the parliamentarian's questions, he concludes his opening statement as follows:

For the record, I also repeat my willingness to provide testimony to the United States Congress, should they decide to consider the issue of unconstitutional mass surveillance.

The first question from the MEPs on the committee concerns the extent of the cooperation between the NSA and EU member states. Snowden's answer includes some new background information on what's been going on here:

One of the foremost activities of the NSA's FAD, or Foreign Affairs Division, is to pressure or incentivize EU member states to change their laws to enable mass surveillance. Lawyers from the NSA, as well as the UK's GCHQ, work very hard to search for loopholes in laws and constitutional protections that they can use to justify indiscriminate, dragnet surveillance operations that were at best unwittingly authorized by lawmakers. These efforts to interpret new powers out of vague laws is an intentional strategy to avoid public opposition and lawmakers' insistence that legal limits be respected, effects the GCHQ internally described in its own documents as "damaging public debate."

That makes a mockery of the UK government's insistence that GCHQ's actions were always "within the law": that's only true to the extent that the agency happily exploited to the maximum loopholes its lawyers have spotted in the already weak UK legislation covering this area. In terms of the spying programs, Snowden hints that there's much more to come, and underlines that revealing them is now a matter for journalists, not for him:

There are many other undisclosed programs that would impact EU citizens' rights, but I will leave the public interest determinations as to which of these may be safely disclosed to responsible journalists in coordination with government stakeholders.

Another question probed the options for raising concerns about spying programs, and asked him whether he thought he had exhausted them before deciding to leak the documents himself. He explained that he had reported programs that seemed problematic to "more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them." So much for the idea that he didn't try hard enough to use official channels before taking more drastic action. On the question of what the European Parliament could do to help him, Snowden's answer is characteristically self-effacing:

If you want to help me, help me by helping everyone: declare that the indiscriminate, bulk collection of private data by governments is a violation of our rights and must end. What happens to me as a person is less important than what happens to our common rights.

But he then goes on to say:

As for asylum, I do seek EU asylum, but I have yet to receive a positive response to the requests I sent to various EU member states. Parliamentarians in the national governments have told me that the US, and I quote, "will not allow" EU partners to offer political asylum to me, which is why the previous resolution on asylum ran into such mysterious opposition. I would welcome any offer of safe passage or permanent asylum, but I recognize that would require an act of extraordinary political courage.

Sadly, it seems unlikely that political courage will be forthcoming given the extremely weak responses from European governments to the spying leaks. Snowden was also asked about economic espionage:

global surveillance capabilities are being used on a daily basis for the purpose of economic espionage. That a major goal of the US Intelligence Community is to produce economic intelligence is the worst kept secret in Washington.

In this context he makes an astute observation:

Recently, governments have shifted their talking points from claiming they only use mass surveillance for "national security" purposes to the more nebulous "valid foreign intelligence purposes." I suggest this committee consider that this rhetorical shift is a tacit acknowledgment by governments that they recognize they have crossed beyond the boundaries of justifiable activities..

He also elaborates on an early comment that encryption, done properly, does offer a measure of protection against the kind of surveillance programs he has revealed:

The good news is that there are solutions. The weakness of mass surveillance is that it can very easily be made much more expensive through changes in technical standards: pervasive, end-to-end encryption can quickly make indiscriminate surveillance impossible on a cost-effective basis. The result is that governments are likely to fall back to traditional, targeted surveillance founded upon an individualized suspicion.

In other words, encryption brings a double benefit. It helps preserve people's privacy and freedom, and thanks to the high costs of breaking properly-encrypted communications, it encourages governments to move back to the older, more targetted kind of spying that Snowden himself calls "above reproach". Finally, he was asked some more hostile questions from the right-leaning members of the committee, including whether the Russian secret service had approached him:

Of course. Even the secret service of Andorra would have approached me, if they had had the chance: that's their job.

But I didn't take any documents with me from Hong Kong, and while I'm sure they were disappointed, it doesn't take long for an intelligence service to realize when they're out of luck. I was also accompanied at all times by an utterly fearless journalist [WikiLeaks' Sarah Harrison] with one of the biggest megaphones in the world, which is the equivalent of Kryptonite for spies. As a consequence, we spent the next 40 days trapped in an airport instead of sleeping on piles of money while waiting for the next parade. But we walked out with heads held high.

As that hints, it's an eloquent and important document that is worth reading in its entirety. It not only adds useful details to many of the facts that have been published earlier, but also underlines the consistently rigorous and moral approach that Snowden has taken from the beginning.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: asylum, ed snowden, eu, eu parliament, gchq, nsa, nsa surveillance, russia, surveillance, testimony

Former NSA Official Claims Snowden Set Agency Back A Decade, Tells Putin To 'Return' Whistleblower

from the mostly-fury,-some-sound,-otherwise-insignificant dept

Another former NSA official has offered his contribution to the "Snowden has destroyed the NSA" narrative. Jack Israel, former "technical director for NSA's analysis & production directorate" has posted an op-ed at the Baltimore Sun that makes all the usual stops on the talking point circuit on its way to claiming the leaks have done "permanent damage" to the NSA.

Sept. 11th? Referenced heavily. The bulk of Israel's op-ed recounts the agency's actions after the Sept. 11th attacks, including its newfound interest in the internet. Rather than acknowledging the failure to collaborate that allowed a known terrorist (and 9/11 participant) to reenter the country unnoticed, Israel blames this on another, older leak.

Our sensors were trained on some of al-Qaida's lieutenants, but there were no signs of an impending attack. Years ago, we listened to the communications of Osama bin Laden, but they went off the air when this source was leaked to the press…

So, according to Israel, the NSA decided to take a look at this new thing called the internet.

Much of the conversation the morning after focused on phone calls, a technology that NSA was long familiar with. But about 15 minutes in, someone opined, what about the Internet? This was a relatively new technology, one that some in NSA feared would cause the agency to "go blind" because of the dazzling volumes of information and endless variety of new and emerging communications modes such as chat, email, and even telephone calls over the Internet…

"How do we know they're even using it?" the head of the data collection directorate asked. Several years ago we had sampled communications channels looking for al-Qaida and had not found a trace.

"They are," a senior analyst responded. "They're saying so in their phone calls."

And the internet proved to be a huge source of data. Israel claims that "within six months," the agency had compiled a huge terrorist database, thanks to these collections. But his recollection of this game-changing event glosses over the NSA's apparent failure to surveil the internet. The NSA was already listening to terrorists' calls. This much is apparent. But the terrorists were saying something and the NSA just wasn't hearing it. Let's repeat that last line.

"They are," a senior analyst responded. "They're saying so in their phone calls."

So, if we're to believe Israel's take, then the NSA KNEW Al-Qaeda was "using the internet" but, until after the 9/11 attacks, didn't do anything about it. Several years earlier it had "sampled communications," but despite directly hearing from Al-Qaeda operatives about their internet activities, decided not to pursue that "dead end" again. I guess if we buy that story, then we can see his point about Snowden setting back the agency "ten years." The agency apparently reacts with all the nimbleness of an oil tanker. It knew but did nothing, until it was too late.

But this isn't the nadir of Israel's op-ed. This interjection, hidden in parentheses towards the end of his piece, is. It's not just stupid. It's also poorly written.

To President Vladimir Putin: Give us Snowden. You already know everything from him.

It was made clear months ago that Snowden had completely offloaded his stash of documents before setting foot in Russia. Even if you find that hard to believe, the assumptions that Russian intelligence agencies have somehow either a.) cracked device security to gain access or b.) cracked Snowden himself to gain access are equally unbelievable. If "a" is true, then one needs to question the NSA's inability to discover what documents have been "taken." The "b" assumption relies heavily on other conspiracy theories, like Snowden working in conjunction with Russia or him being worked over to give up what he knows. Israel's wording seems to suggest the latter, despite there being no indication that Putin wants Snowden around for anything more than annoying the US government. (This could change, of course, given the events in the Ukraine, and the US government's stance against Russian intervention...)

"You already know everything from him" is a ridiculous assertion made even worse by Israel's choice to put these exact words in that exact order. This clumsy stab at labeling Snowden a traitor follows a sentence equally abhorrent in its misrepresentation of actual events.

He and his supplicants at major press outlets here and abroad publish his revelations as if the national security of this country and the U.K. matter little.

I won't argue the fact that Snowden's leaks have damaged these agencies' surveillance abilities. "Setting them back a decade" is a bit much. But the focal point of the leaks has mostly been the two agencies' insistence on spying on their own countries. They may kick the surveillance ball back and forth to prevent directly spying on their fellow citizens, but the culture of sharing the GCHQ and the NSA have developed over the years makes this small distinction irrelevant.

The NSA's defenders are running out of steam. They can't seem to find any real justification for these pervasive surveillance programs and have resorted to hurling mealy-mouthed insults at Snowden and various journalistic entities from the relative safety of op-ed pages and anonymous statements.

Filed Under: edward snowden, jack israel, nsa, russia

Hey, Ukraine, How'd Tamping Down Free Speech Work Out For You?

from the we-already-know-the-answer dept

As you may remember, we've taken a bit of an interest in Ukraine lately. Frankly, it's not all that common that you get to see a popular revolution take place right there on your television/computer screen. So, as you're probably somewhat aware, the Ukrainian people have dismissed the creepy Orwellian threats of the former government, discarded the false promises they made, and have taken the first step to establishing a new government.

The Parliament voted to oust Yanukovych, a key demand of protesters. It appointed seasoned lawmaker Oleksandr Turchinov as a new speaker who will take on Yanukovych's duties until new elections in May. Turchinov, a longtime ally of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, has promised a new interim government by Tuesday.

"We have a legitimate source of authority in Kiev, which is the democratically elected Parliament and a democratically, constitutionally elected speaker of parliament, who is acting president," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who helped broker a peace deal between the government and the opposition, said on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS.

Now, it should be noted that this might not be completely over yet. First, Viktor Yanukovych, the now-ousted President of Ukraine, still claims he is the rightful leader of the country, though he does so from hiding. In addition, essentially the entire nation of Ukraine is casting Russia a wary eye, waiting for Vladimir Putin to gallop in shirtless on his steed and sweep all of this change away. Those fears will eventually be cast aside as well, however, just as were those of the old Ukraine government.

This is how we concluded our last post on the false concessions made by the government to protestors after absolutely violating their freedom of speech.

This, I fear, won't be enough to send the protesters back to their homes. A new government with the same President is only "new" as a method for parody and derision. An attempt to turn on the free speech of a people isn't going to be forgiven in exchange for lesser resignations.

That probably goes for Russia at this point as well. This entire fight has been over trading with the West or remaining beholden to Russia's promise of foreign cash injections: the way Ukraine has been pulled for decades. Fortunately, in this time, the people of Ukraine not only had the will to change their government, they had the ability to organize and export their story to the world via the internet, ubiquitous camera phones, and a citizen press. In other words, twenty years ago, this might not have been possible. Now it's eminently so.

Other nations looking to tamp down on free speech and a free internet may want to take note of the consequences.

Filed Under: free speech, russia, ukraine

If Russian And Chinese Intelligence Could Supposedly Get Access To Snowden's Documents So Easily, Why Couldn't The NSA Figure Out What He Has?

from the allegations-are-great-if-you-never-have-to-prove-them dept

Democracy Now! recently hosted a debate between ardent NSA supporter Stewart Baker and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. The entire debate is worth watching/reading (a full transcript is provided) but Baker's opening statement reiterated a claim some NSA supporters have made in an effort to portray Snowden as at least an accidental traitor, if not a more deliberate conspirator.

What Edward Snowden did was quite deliberately change jobs to gather as much, perhaps millions of documents, from as many places as he could around the National Security Agency, but involving other agencies, as well. He stored them on a computer and handed them out to—who exactly, we don’t know, but certainly to journalists, and with controls that probably make it likely that sophisticated intelligence agencies have been able to get access to them, and allowed them to be disclosed at the journalists’ discretion, more or less with some guidance from Snowden.

Now, Baker may have misspoken when he said "sophisticated intelligence agencies have been able to get access to [the documents]," but if so, he was never questioned about it. The mention of "controls" would seem to indicate he meant "haven't" instead of "have" (it's "have" in both the transcript and the video), but its not as though this -- that the Chinese/Russians obtained access with or without Snowden's permission -- hasn't been heavily implied before. (And Baker does follow it by stating that the leaks damaged the NSA's ability to "keep an eye on Iranian and North Korean and Chinese and Russian operations.")

Reporter Kurt Eichenwald declared back in November that Snowden "left all of his documents in Hong Kong" and implied the whistleblower was working with the Chinese government. A former NSA official claimed Snowden was a Russian spy and was working in concert with Russian intelligence and Wikileaks to hand over his documents to the Russians. Others have speculated that Snowden's security measures had been subverted the moment he set foot in Hong Kong/Russia.

Back in the real world, the NSA still admits it has no idea what Snowden has in his possession. (Or, rather, what's been distributed to journalists around the world. Snowden apparently "divested" himself of his "holdings" before heading to Russia.)

The underlying implication of these claims is that even with Snowden trying to protect the documents, it's likely that intelligence agencies in these two countries were able to gain access. That claim is either a) ridiculous or b) an indictment of the NSA's internal security and hacking prowess.

If we're to believe the Russians or Chinese gained access before Snowden unloaded the document trove, the question becomes why hasn't the NSA -- arguably the top intelligence agency in the world -- been able to gain access? After all, our spycraft is the best spycraft and the NSA's tools are apparently some of the best in the world. And yet, even with an inside track -- its own internal systems -- the NSA still can't figure out what Snowden grabbed.

If the NSA can't get to Snowden, then it's unlikely any other intelligence agency did either. This puts those pushing this narrative in the position of claiming Snowden worked directly with foreign intelligence agencies to provide them with sensitive documents, an assertion that few of the NSA's most fervent supporters are reluctant to make.

Filed Under: china, edward snowden, nsa, russia

Honesty Policy: Russia Making No Bones About Spying On Everyone During The Olympics

from the i-seeeeeeee-you dept

I'll give the Russian government this: they don't really pretend to be something they aren't. Unlike the US government's NSA spying program, which was only revealed through the leaks of now Russian house guest Edward Snowden, the Russian government wants you to know that they don't give a fly's poop about your civil liberties or anyone's concept of freedom of the press.

So says Russia, which has publically and completely above-board-ly announced that journalists covering the Olympic Games in Sochi will have their electronic communications monitored thoroughly by the Russian government.

A series of articles last fall revealed the amazing extent of the centralized surveillance, which exceeds the capabilities of the Chinese monitoring system at the Beijing games, and is given much wider latitude to eavesdrop than even our own NSA programs. The very communications infrastructure in Sochi was built to give government security systems full access, and not a single text message, email, or phone call will go un-monitored.

Russia's response has been a big shrug. Voice of Russia, an official government organ, published an article telling visitors not to be afraid—it's for your own security. Then, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree authorizing the government to collect all phone and internet data at the Olympics. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that reporters are twice specifically highlighted as targets in the decree.

The whole "it's for your own good" line is a sham, of course. What the Russian government is actually worried about is any reporting on their own security flaws in the upcoming Games, along with the prospect of foreign journalists getting in contact with any activists, protesters, or opposition figures. But, hey, we're nitpicking here. The real story is that the Russian government gets the same spy-boners as the United States and the Chinese, but at least they tell you all about it. Like a peeping tom that sends you an Outlook calendar invite for when they'll be activating the toilet cams, or something.

This publicity is probably itself part of the program of staving off any real work journalists might want to do. But that's the beauty of it: they get to appear to be transparent while still retaining that good old fashion Orwellian feeling. So...progress?

Filed Under: intimidation, journalism, olympics, privacy, russia, sochi, surveillance

Rep. Mike Rogers Keeps Insisting Snowden Is A Russian Spy, Even As NSA/FBI Officials Say No Such Evidence

from the do-you-trust-mike-rogers? dept

Rep. Mike Rogers sure loves the NSA and really, really hates Ed Snowden. It's at the point where Rogers appears to not care at all about the truth, repeating multiple blatant falsehoods in TV interviews when it comes to Snowden. This past weekend, he went on TV to repeat an old favorite, claiming (without any proof, but just blind speculation) that he thinks that Snowden was a Russian spy all along. On Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Rogers about Snowden's comments in his interview with Bart Gellman, in which Snowden pointed to Rogers' (and Senator Dianne Feinstein's) failure to uphold their role as overseers of the NSA as for why he had to leak the documents he gave to reporters. Rogers disagrees and hints that Snowden "had some help."

Well, first of all, I mean, I couldn't disagree more. That's like having the janitor at a bank who figured out how to steal some money deciding matters of high finance. This was a thief, who we believe had some help, who stole information the vast majority had nothing to do with privacy. Our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines have been incredibly harmed by the data that he has taken with him and we believe now is in the hands of nation states.

Note the insult: comparing Snowden to "the janitor." This is nothing more than Rogers being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. People who worked with Snowden have pointed out repeatedly that he was incredibly smart, with one NSA colleague describing him as "a genius among geniuses."

DAVID GREGORY:
Who helped him?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, there were certain questions that we have to get answered. Where some of this aid, first of all, if it was a privacy concern he had, he didn't look for information on the privacy side for Americans. He was stealing information that had to do with how we operate overseas to collect information to keep Americans safe. That begs the question. And some of the things he did were beyond his technical capabilities. Raises more questions. How he arranged travel before he left. How he was ready to go, he had a go bag, if you will.

That's actually not what anyone was saying. As we pointed out, late last year, the NSA's director of technology, Lonny Anderson, has admitted that basically anyone who had top secret security clearance could have seen all of the documents Snowden saw and that because of Snowden's job as a sys admin in charge of moving certain documents around, what Snowden did was part of his normal job. Others in the NSA have said the same thing. So it appears that Rogers is, once again, simply making stuff up.

As for the travel issues, it doesn't seem that confusing at all. He flew to Hong Kong, which he'd evidently planned for a while. He didn't need "a go bag" to be all ready to go. And, then, once the news reports first came out, of course he knew he had to be ready to travel.

DAVID GREGORY:
But how high level, do you think?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, let me just say this. I believe there's a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don't think that's a coincidence, number one. Number two, and let me just talk about this. I think it's important.

DAVID GREGORY:
You think the Russians helped Ed Snowden?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
I believe there's questions to be answered there. I don't think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the handling of the FSB.

DAVID GREGORY:
That's a significant development if it's true.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE ROGERS:
Well, I said we have questions we have to answer. But as somebody who used to do investigations, some of the things we're finding we would call clues that certainly would indicate to me that he had some help and he stole things that had nothing to do with privacy.

Yes, there's a reason he ended up in Russia... because on his attempt to go to Latin America, the US pulled his passport, leaving him stranded in a Moscow airport for a few weeks. Maybe, just maybe, if the US hadn't reacted in such a kneejerk manner, he could have actually made it to his destination.

Meanwhile, both the NSA's guy in charge of reviewing the Snowden situation, Rick Ledgett, as well as the FBI team investigating Snowden have both said that there is absolutely no indication that Snowden was working with anyone else. The NSA specifically has said:

The NSA's internal review has determined about 98 percent of the scope of the material that Snowden had accessed, and officials have found no evidence that he had help either within the NSA or from adversary spy agencies.

As for the FBI:

According to senior government officials, F.B.I. agents from the bureau’s Washington field office, who are leading the investigation, believe that Mr. Snowden methodically downloaded the files over several months while working as a government contractor at the Hawaii facility. They also believe that he worked alone, the officials said.

Yet, magically, Rep. Mike Rogers somehow knows that he was just a Russian spy all along? Yeah, right. Considering Rogers' history as willing to flat out lie to defend the NSA and smear Ed Snowden, it's difficult to take him seriously. If David Gregory were paying attention, he would have pointed all of that out, but Gregory seems more intent on just continuing to keep up his cozy relationship with the NSA's strongest defenders.

Filed Under: david gregory, ed snowden, mike rogers, nsa, russia, surveillance