Ex-NSA Official Breezily Reveals Details Of NSA Surveillance Capabilities In Iraq

from the hey,-wait... dept

Throughout the whole Ed Snowden ordeal, defenders of the NSA and the surveillance state keep insisting that revealing even the slightest details of the NSA's capabilities help our enemies "win" because they'll learn how to avoid the surveillance. As such, they've been wringing their hands about how any revelation of what the NSA is up to will cause immense damage. Just recently, the NSA pressed hard on the Washington Post not to reveal the name of the country where the NSA is currently recording every single phone call. The Washington Post agreed to withhold this information -- a decision that some have challenged.

However, barely a week later, in a glowing profile by the LA Times of now-retired NSA boss Keith Alexander, his former number two guy at the NSA, Chris Inglis, who also just retired, breezily admits to the depth of the NSA's surveillance capabilities in Iraq, information that prior to this had not been public:

In Iraq, for example, the National Security Agency went from intercepting only about half of enemy signals and taking hours to process them to being able to collect, sort and make available every Iraqi email, text message and phone-location signal in real time, said John "Chris" Inglis, who recently retired as the NSA's top civilian.

The entire article is a weak (and grossly transparent) attempt to recast General Keith Alexander's legacy -- and thus it seems that Inglis, Alexander and the NSA have no problem at all revealing the details of its capabilities in Iraq when the entire purpose in doing so is an attempt to show how good Alexander was for the NSA. Rest assured, however, had the same bit of information come out from one of the reporters with access to the Snowden documents, the NSA and all its defenders would be screaming as loud as possible about how the publication of such information would cost lives and create immense damage to American interests while aiding our enemies. Yet, apparently, it's all fine and dandy to reveal such information... when it's part of the effort to canonize the NSA retired leader.

Filed Under: capabilities, chris inglis, ed snowden, iraq, keith alexander, nsa, revealing classified info, surveillance

Keith Alexander Supports Law To Gag Press So He Can Get His Preferred Online Surveillance Bill Passed

from the but-of-course dept

Oh, Keith Alexander, how we're going to miss your insane claims once you retire in a few weeks -- though, I'm sure that as you drift off into "retirement" only to be hired by some government contractor or lobbying organization at an insultingly high salary, that like your buddy Michael Hayden, you'll still be good for regular bullshit quotes to news organization. Still, while on the job, Alexander seems to want to go out with a bang, talking about how the UK was correct to detain Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda under an anti-terrorism law even though no one thinks he's a terrorist. However, even more troubling, is that Alexander, who has argued that the US government needs to figure out a way to silence reporters reporting on leaked documents, claims that there's an effort underway to create "media leaks legislation."

The general, who is due to retire in the next several weeks, said that the furore over Snowden’s surveillance revelations – which he referred to only as “media leaks” – was complicating his ability to get congressional support for a bill that would permit the NSA and the military Cyber Command he also helms to secretly communicate with private entities like banks about online data intrusions and attacks.

“We’ve got to handle media leaks first,” Alexander said.

“I think we are going to make headway over the next few weeks on media leaks. I am an optimist. I think if we make the right steps on the media leaks legislation, then cyber legislation will be a lot easier,” Alexander said.

In case you haven't been paying attention, Alexander has been pushing for years for laws like CISPA, which would give the NSA much greater control over "cybersecurity" -- and specifically knock down barriers towards getting companies to share information with the NSA. Alexander and CISPA supporters have been spinning this entirely about "protecting" companies from online attackers, leaving out how it's really about giving the NSA more backdoors into private companies' networks.

But think about what Alexander is saying above. He's flat out admitting -- as many have noted -- that his pet cybersecurity bills are dead right now because of all of the Snowden leaks, showing just how abusive the NSA has been. And his answer to that is not to fix the NSA, but to pass bills to stifle the free press from reporting on NSA efforts, which he then thinks will allow the government to pass legislation like CISPA.

As the report in the Guardian notes, no one seems to have any idea what this "media leaks legislation" is going to entail, as nothing has yet been proposed, and there haven't even been any real rumors of anything until now. However, with James Clapper recently referring to reporters as accomplices, and Rep. Mike Rogers making the out-of-left-field argument that reporters who are covering Snowden are thieves who traffic in stolen government property, you can connect a few dots and guess at what's coming down the pike.

Alexander's own comments seem to similarly suggest that reporters "have no standing" to report on these issues, because they're not insiders, using the Miranda detention as a launching pad:

“Recently, what came out with the justices in the United Kingdom … they looked at what happened on Miranda and other things, and they said it’s interesting: journalists have no standing when it comes to national security issues. They don’t know how to weigh the fact of what they’re giving out and saying, is it in the nation’s interest to divulge this,”

Still, a bill to stifle investigative reporting is going to face stiff opposition, and even bringing up such a concept suggests that Alexander still has no clue what current public perception is like concerning the NSA's surveillance activities. Just the fact that he's suggesting a bill to silence a free press, and he specifically admits he wants to do so in order to get his troubling surveillance bill approved, shows the depths of Alexander's thinking on these issues. A free press? Not important. More power for the NSA to spy on everyone? That's the priority.

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, free press, keith alexander, nsa

Keith Alexander's Big Idea: What If The NSA Just Collected Phone Data On Suspected Terrorists?

from the this-option-just-came-to-you? dept

In what may be NSA boss Keith Alexander's final appearance before Congress before retiring in a few weeks, he appeared to (for the first time publicly) acknowledge that perhaps they don't need to track everyone and could, instead, try just watching the phone records of suspected terrorists. He acts as if this is a brand new idea. Seriously:

One option that Alexander called feasible involves sharing what amounts to a watch list of suspected terrorists’ phone numbers with phone companies. The companies would search for links to other numbers, returning that data to the government.

He said if the government could work out a system in which it could share those “terrorist selectors” in a classified manner, “it sets the case in precedent” for sharing classified threat data with industry for cybersecurity purposes.

Of course, as others have pointed out, you don't need "a precedent" for that -- we have it already. It's called a pen register and has been widely used by law enforcement for a decade, and there's a whole law discussing how it can be used.

Alexander said that there were "pros and cons" to that particular approach, but that's a pretty big shift from the man whose mantra has long been "collect it all." Also, all this may not matter at all since Alexander is about to be out of the job -- so perhaps it's just in his final moments as NSA boss that he finally admits what plenty of people have been saying all along: there's simply no justifiable explanation for the NSA collecting information on just about everyone.

Filed Under: keith alexander, nsa, privacy, surveillance

Rand Paul Files Lawsuit Against The NSA While Peter King Questions His Party's Loyalty To The Surveillance State

from the NSA-swiftly-shooting-up-'America's-favorite-defendant'-chart dept

Shortly after the first Snowden leak back in June of last year, Sen. Rand Paul threatened to file a class action lawsuit against the government for its surveillance of American citizens. This move, while interesting, seemed to be less useful than actually trying to reform the NSA using the legislative process. Nonetheless, Paul was apparently serious and has officially filed his lawsuit in the DC federal court, naming President Obama, NSA head Keith Alexander, ODNI Director James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey as defendants.

“There’s a huge and growing swell of protest in this country of people who are outraged that their records are being taken without suspicion, without a judge’s warrant and without individualization,” Paul said at a news conference outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia…

“I’m not against the NSA, I’m not against spying, I’m not against looking at phone records,” Paul said. “I just want you to go to a judge, have an individual’s name and [get] a warrant. That’s what the Fourth Amendment says.”

It seems like a simple enough requirement. Targeted warrants have long been used for investigations, and there's no reason to believe they simply don't work anymore. The nation's investigative and security agencies have just become accustomed to circumventing this aspect of the Fourth Amendment.

Rand Paul and an untold number of others will be represented by Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia attorney general, who explains why Paul's lawsuit is different than the dozens of others that have been filed in the wake of Snowden's leaks.

“This case is, first of all, the only case that is strictly challenging the Fourth Amendment elements of the telephone metadata gathering,” Cuccinelli said. “Second of all, this will be certified later in the case as a class action, on behalf of all Americans. The other cases thus far are on behalf of individual plaintiffs … that does not provide relief for every American using telephones. This case will.”

This filing has prompted angry comments (of course) from terrorist appeaser (and current Congressman) Peter King ([sigh] of course.)

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) expressed anger Wednesday that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is slated to file a lawsuit against President Obama and other officials over National Security Agency surveillance…

“I think that has really hurt the country,” King said of the leaks on MSNBC. “That is why I am so angry that Rand Paul is bringing this lawsuit today.”

King went on to question whether his party should have Snowden sympathizers in its ranks.

“And let's just say as Republicans ... do we really want people in our party somehow saying they don’t know whether he is a patriot or not? ... Who actually put him in the same classification as the director of national intelligence?”

These questions presumably received no answer other than a saddened headshake from King himself. It looks as though there's only one way to be a Republican these days, and that's to be in total servitude to the surveillance state. Even questioning King's assertion that Snowden is a traitor is bad for America the Republican party King's normally boyishly exuberant outlook on life the current legislative majority, as envisioned by pro bono NSA flack, Peter King.

Filed Under: james clapper, james comey, keith alexander, nsa, odni, peter king, rand paul

NSA Officials Hate Ed Snowden With A Passion

from the yes,-emotional-response-is-what-we-need dept

Last week we wrote about Steven Levy's big article concerning the impact on the tech industry of the NSA's activities. This week, he's written a short piece about the two hours he got to spend at Fort Meade in the NSA's headquarters meeting with some of the NSA's top officials there. He explains how they didn't seem to want to cooperate at first, but then became much more accommodating later on. He notes that the NSA doesn't seem to recognize that "protecting" Americans and "breaking everyone's crypto" might be two goals that are at odds with one another. But, the main point he makes: NSA officials really, really, really seem to hate Ed Snowden's guts:

They really hate Snowden. The NSA is clearly, madly, deeply furious at the man whose actions triggered the biggest crisis in its history. Even while contending they welcome the debate that now engages the nation, they say that they hate the way it was triggered. The NSA has an admittedly insular culture — the officials described it as almost like a family.... NSA officials are infuriated that all this havoc was caused by some random contractor. They suggest that had Snowden been familiar with the culture and the ethos of the agency, understood the level of training undergone by its employees, seen the level of regulations and oversight, he would have been less likely to abscond with all those documents. (Snowden’s interviews indicate otherwise.) Still, they are stunned that someone “inside the fence” would do what Snowden did. Even if Snowden is eventually pardoned, he’d do well to steer clear of Fort Meade.

There's something kind of funny about the fact that they look down on him as being "some random contractor" and if only he'd really been a part of the "NSA family" that he'd "understand." That seems quite unlikely, but also suggests one of the many reasons why what the NSA is doing is so problematic. Any mission that involves people having to feel a "part of the group" to make sure that the surveillance isn't abused is a system that will be abused.

Even more troubling, is that the NSA still seems to be reacting emotionally to the whole thing. That's part of the reason they still seem unable to comprehend how much damage they've done -- not Snowden.

Filed Under: ed snowden, emotion, keith alexander, nsa, rick ledgett, steven levy, surveillance

7 Things You Missed If You Didn't Read Wired's Big Story On How The NSA Is Killing The Internet

from the it's-not-almost dept

Steven Levy, who specializes in massive articles looking into aspects of the tech industry, has a new one for Wired, called How the NSA Almost Killed the Internet. It basically looks at how the NSA legally coerced the tech companies into having to comply with certain court orders to hand over information, and how the tech companies have been gagged from explaining what's going on. And then... he gets the NSA's side of the story. Much of what's in there is stuff that you probably already know (especially if you read Techdirt regularly), but I wanted to call out a few tidbits that I hadn't seen or heard anywhere else before:

1. Google doesn't charge the government for requests for information:

   FISA requires the government to reimburse companies for the cost of retrieving information. Google says it doesn’t bother to charge the government. But one company says it uses that clause, hoping to limit the extent of the requests. “At first, we thought we shouldn’t charge for it,” says an executive of that company. “Then we realized, it’s good—it forces them to stop and think.”

   This is kind of a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situation. I know plenty of folks in the civil liberties community go back and forth on it. When companies do charge, then you see articles about how companies are "making a profit" off of violating our privacy. If they don't charge, then you see arguments about how they're making it too easy for the government to get info. Either way, the standard has been to charge basic costs, so it's interesting to see that Google doesn't charge at all, probably betting on the fact that if they did, it would be misrepresented. Of course, the fact that they don't might be misrepresented as well.
2. The NSA has no response to fear of future abuse of programs beyond "we'd never do that." Seriously.

   Critics charge that while there is not yet any evidence of massive abuse of the NSA’s collected data, there is also no guarantee that a future regime won’t ignore these touted protections. These officials discounted that possibility, saying that the majority of NSA employees wouldn’t stand for such a policy. “If that happened, there would be lines at the Inspector General’s office here, and at Congress as well—longer than a Disneyland line,” Ledgett says. (The fates of several NSA employees-turned-whistleblowers indicate that anyone in that hypothetical queue would be in for a ride far wilder than anything in Anaheim.)

   Sure, except there's a very long history of the NSA and the FBI doing exactly the opposite (the claim of no evidence of massive abuse is not actually true). And, as Levy notes in that final parenthetical, the way whistleblowers are treated these days would probably shorten that line quite a bit.
3. Keith Alexander admits that companies were compelled to comply and admits that we should stand up for the companies not to be harmed by all of this:

   “This isn’t the companies’ fault. They were compelled to do it. As a nation, we have a responsibility to stand up for the companies, both domestically and internationally. That is our nation’s best interest. We don’t want our companies to lose their economic capability and advantage. It’s for the future of our country.”
   
   Those words could have come from a policy spokesperson for Google, Facebook, Microsoft, or Yahoo. Or one of the legislators criticizing the NSA’s tactics. Or even a civil liberties group opposing the NSA. But the source is US Army general Keith Alexander, director of the NSA. Still, even as he acknowledges that tech companies have been forced into a tough position, he insists that his programs are legal, necessary, and respectful of privacy.

   This is just bizarre. If he doesn't want the companies to lose their economic capability and advantage, maybe he shouldn't have undermined a large portion of it.
4. Companies were given about 90 minutes to respond to the (misleading) claims in the original PRISM article that they had given the NSA direct access to their servers.

   “We had 90 minutes to respond,” says Facebook’s head of security, Joe Sullivan. No one at the company had ever heard of a program called Prism. And the most damning implication—that Facebook and the other companies granted the NSA direct access to their servers in order to suck up vast quantities of information—seemed outright wrong. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was taken aback by the charge and asked his executives whether it was true. Their answer: no.
   
   Similar panicked conversations were taking place at Google, Apple, and Microsoft. “We asked around: Are there any surreptitious ways of getting information?” says Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel. “No.”

   This remains one of the most unfortunate bits about the Snowden leaks. While I think that Barton Gellman, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras have done an incredible job with most of their reporting, the original PRISM stories that appeared in the Washington Post and Guardian both came out rushed and were misleading, which is still impacting how people are reporting on these things today. The PRISM program and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act have serious issues that need exploring, but it's all been distorted by the misleading initial claims, which implied things that just weren't true.
5. The NSA claims it uses the very same encryption that it tries to push everyone else to use. Yes, the same encryption that Snowden docs have revealed was compromised by the NSA.

   And the NSA insists that, despite the implications of those Snowden-leaked documents, it does not engage in weakening encryption standards. “The same standards we recommend are the standards we use,” Ledgett says. “We would not use standards we thought were vulnerable. That would be insane.”

   Sorry, but no one believes that one at all. The clear takeover by the NSA of NIST standards shows that's clearly not true.
6. The NSA still doesn't realize how serious all of this is. They still think it's just been blown out of proportion.

   They understand that journalism conferences routinely host sessions on protecting information from government snoops, as if we were living in some Soviet society. And they are aware that multiple security specialists in the nation’s top tech corporations now consider the US government their prime adversary.
   
   But they do not see any of those points as a reason to stop gathering data. They chalk all of that negativity up to monumental misunderstandings triggered by a lone leaker and a hostile press.

7. Patent troll Nathan Myhrvold is also completely clueless about national security:

   Former Microsoft research head Nathan Myhrvold recently wrote a hair-raising treatise arguing that, considering the threat of terrorists with biology degrees who could wipe out a good portion of humanity, tough surveillance measures might not be so bad. Myhrvold calls out the tech companies for hypocrisy. They argue that the NSA should stop exploiting information in the name of national security, he says, but they are more than happy to do the same thing in pursuit of their bottom lines. “The cost is going to be lower efficiency in finding terrorist plots—and that cost means blood,” he says.

   This is stupid on so many levels. First, the old argument that it's somehow equivalent of tech companies and the NSA to make use of information -- a claim that Levy ridiculously repeats multiple times in his article -- is a line that has been debunked so many times it's really beneath Levy to give it any life at all, let alone refuse to point out how stupid it is. Companies provide a direct service to users, and they make a decision: If I give this information, I get this service in return. It's a decision made by the consumer, and a trade-off where they decide if it's worth it. We can argue that people should have more information about the costs and benefits, but it's still a trade-off where the final decision is their own. The NSA, on the other hand, is not providing a choice or a trade-off. They're just taking everything in exchange for nothing. And, oh yeah, they have guns and can put you in jail -- something no company can do.
   
   Second, Myhrvold incorrectly buys completely the line that all this data collection has been helpful in stopping terrorists. There's just one problem: there is no evidence to support that. Besides, based on his idiotic reasoning, we might as well just do away with pretty much all our rights. For example, I'm pretty sure that we could all have protected Myhrvold more completely if there were video cameras streaming video of everything he did within the privacy of his own home, cars, office or just walking around, right? We could certainly make sure that no one was attacking him or, better yet, that he wasn't about to attack anyone. The cost of not spying on every moment of Nathan Myhrvold might mean "blood." So, based on his own logic, we should violate his privacy, right?

All in all there's a lot in the article that's worth reading, but those were a few key points that really stood out.

Filed Under: keith alexander, nathan myhrvold, nsa, rick ledgett, steven levy, surveillance, tech industry
Companies: google, yahoo

Obama Chastises Keith Alexander For Trying To Befuddle Him With Tech Jargon

from the not-looking-good dept

The Daily Beast has an interesting article with a number of insider accounts, suggesting that President Obama is seriously leaning towards cutting back the NSA's activities. I'll believe it when I see it -- and there's still a compelling argument that all of these moves are really just an attempt to block or delay serious judicial or Congressional review of these programs. However, there are some very interesting tidbits in the article, including this chastising of NSA boss Keith Alexander for trying to dazzle Obama with tech jargon:

But behind the scenes, Obama was showing some irritation with the intelligence leadership that had pressed for these capabilities and repeatedly vouched for their value. One story that rocketed around the intelligence community involved a meeting between Obama and NSA Director Keith Alexander. Alexander, who holds advanced degrees in physics and electronic warfare, was trying to explain certain aspects of one of the surveillance programs to Obama. As his highly technical and jargon-laden presentation rambled on, Obama was beginning to lose patience. When he finished, Obama thanked him and then icily asked if he could do it over again, "but this time in English."

Some of this fits with earlier statements, in which President Obama more or less admitted that he had no idea what the NSA was up to -- and that only after he found out about stuff in the press did he go back to Alexander and others and find out what the NSA was really doing. At the very least, that suggests incredibly poor leadership skills and five years in which he more or less let the agency run itself with little real oversight.

In fact, the article suggests this may be the case. Despite the fact that Obama, prior to becoming President, supported a number of changes to the surveillance state, upon becoming President, it appears that he let folks like Alexander talk him out of it.

As a senator and as a presidential candidate during the 2008 campaign, Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. But shortly after taking office, he was persuaded by officials that the programs had been placed on a firmer legal foundation and were necessary. He had been briefed on occasional compliance lapses so serious that the secret court overseeing the surveillance programs had threatened to shut them down. But each time he was reassured that no harm was done.

There is no evidence to suggest that Obama expressed much skepticism about the surveillance program during his first term. He was assured on numerous occasions that the NSA's bulk metadata program, which tapped the phone records--though not the content--of virtually all Americans, was a vital tool for foiling terrorist attacks in the United States.

All of this suggests that the President felt he should focus on other things that seemed more pressing, and just accepted the claims of the NSA and its supporters that these programs were both important and legal -- two things that deserved significant scrutiny. But, of course, so long as those programs were kept secret, they weren't "pressing" issues, so Obama could get away with just accepting the claims from the NSA as factual. Since that's changed, he's actually needed to find out what his own NSA is doing, leading to the task force, the changes, and the fact that he's no longer so easily bamboozled with tech jargon from an NSA boss whose specialty seems to be answering questions by not actually answering questions.

I'm still skeptical that we'll see real reform coming out of this part of the process, but hopefully the article accurately shows that President Obama is finally taking a real interest in this, and is no longer simply accepting the claims of the intelligence community.

Filed Under: barack obama, jargon, keith alexander, nsa, nsa surveillance

Congress Gives NSA-Controlled US Cyber Command More Resources

from the keep-feeding-the-beast dept

Even as there are growing concerns about the NSA, the White House has made it clear that it will not separate the NSA from the US Cyber Command, which is the military's unit that conducts offensive attacks on foreign computing systems. The NSA likes to pretend they're two separate organizations, when they're really one and the same. They're housed in the same place and run by the same guy. And, apparently that's not about to change.

However, Congress has just agreed to funnel a lot more resources to the US Cyber Command, giving Keith Alexander and his soon-to-be-announced successor that much more power to attack computer systems and networks around the globe.

As part of the defense policy bill that just passed Congress, the Pentagon’s many cybersecurity initiatives together secured billions of dollars in funding as well as new resources to help train Cyber Command’s programmers and prepare them to operate on the emerging digital battlefield.

Of course, as the report by Tony Romm notes, this is all being done despite no "rules of engagement" for the US Cyber Command. You would think that before handing over billions, Congress would like to know what the group -- again, controlled by the NSA -- can and cannot do with that money.

Filed Under: appropriations, congress, defense department, keith alexander, nsa, us cyber command

Conflict-Ridden CBS 60 Minutes 'Journalist' Defends NSA Propaganda Piece By Insulting All His Critics

from the how-convincing dept

We recently wrote about 60 Minutes' laughably bad propaganda piece for the NSA, done by "reporter" John Miller, who has spent much of his time working in various high level positions in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. That he's expected to be rejoining law enforcement in an intelligence role shortly and that reports suggest the deal was negotiated long before his NSA report was completed only add to the questionable nature of allowing someone with such an obvious conflict of interest to handle that report. And, given that Miller appeared to only toss ridiculous softballs, failed to challenge any of Keith Alexander's highly questionable statements, and that the entire 60 Minutes team (in a "behind the scenes" clip posted to the web) seemed in awe of the NSA from the word go, the idea that this was nothing more than a infomercial for the NSA has plenty of credence.

After a week or so of silence, Miller finally decided to respond to his critics, by insulting them all and claiming that only the great and mighty John Miller does real reporting. Everyone who criticized the report is nothing more than angry bloggers in pajamas. David Carr, at the NY Times spoke to Miller:

Mr. Miller was more than happy to explain his N.S.A. segment, which he said he would not change if he had the chance.... He is nothing if not confident, dismissing his critics as ankle-biting, agenda-ridden bloggers who could not be compelled to get out of their pajamas and do actual reporting.

“I fully reject the criticism from you and others,” he told me. “The N.S.A. story has been a fairly one-way dialogue. There has been no conversation and when you do hear from the N.S.A., it is in a terse, highly vetted statement.”

“We went there, we asked every question we wanted to, listened to the answers, followed up as we wished, and our audience can decide what and who they believe. As we constructed it, the N.S.A. was a story about a debate, not a villain, and we added to that debate with important information. I fail to understand how a shrill argument for the sake of creating televised drama would have accomplished anything.”

Nearly everything said above is wrong or misleading -- like the comments he got from his buddies at the NSA. Many of the people who criticized Miller's infomercial are well-known and successful reporters with long histories of investigative reporting. For example, New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza absolutely trashed Miller's report, and Lizza recently wrote what I think is one of the absolutely most comprehensive and well-researched pieces on the NSA stuff. Other critics included Glenn Greenwald, who, it's difficult to argue, hasn't done some rather impressive reporting recently on these subjects. Then there's Spencer Ackerman, who has done amazing investigative work concerning the intelligence community and law enforcement for years. And he did a wonderful piece totally debunking the lies the NSA told in the 60 Minutes piece -- that is, the stuff John Miller let go through without questioning any of it. To argue that real investigative reporters weren't criticizing his piece is just wrong. Sure, some of us may be bloggers in our pajamas (guilty!), but to pretend that's where all the criticism came from isn't just lame, it's wrong. Besides, I really thought we were past the age where complaining about "bloggers in pajamas" was considered a thing to do.

As for the idea that the NSA story had been a "one-way dialogue," that's also just ridiculously false. I mean, when a large part of the federal government is on your side, the idea that the NSA's side of the story wasn't being told is laughable. Each week on the usual Sunday talk programs, NSA defenders seem to dominate the airwaves. While it might not be Keith Alexander or James Clapper directly, plenty of surrogates are out there listing out the talking points.

But it's that final paragraph that's really the most maddening -- this idea that "well, we asked questions and now it's up to the audience to decide who to believe." That's bullshit. That's not reporting. Reporting is about uncovering the truth. Bad reporting is, as journalism professor Jay Rosen (who also criticized Miller's reporting) calls it: "he said, she said" journalism where you write down what everyone says and then let the public sort it out for themselves who's full of shit. In this case, it was even worse, because Miller didn't even do the "she said" side. He provided the "he said" without any pushback to clearly bogus statements, and now wants to claim it's okay because the public can figure it out? Really?

Furthermore, what "important information" did they add to the debate? There was nothing in the report that revealed anything new or valuable at all. There was a scare-mongering story about a "BIOS" attack that was quickly shown to have been reported incorrectly (one security expert noted that it was gibberish, rather than anything real). That was about it.

I can understand Miller's desire to hit back at his critics, but name calling and refusing to respond to the direct claims of things that were clearly misleading or erroneous in his report, doesn't help his credibility. Oh, wait, I mean his credibility with the public who get news from him. I'm sure it helps his credibility quite a lot with his former and future bosses within the law enforcement community. And that's why 60 Minutes is a laughingstock for allowing someone so conflicted to put on such a bogus infomercial love letter to the NSA.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, bloggers, cbs news, infomercial, insults, john miller, keith alexander, nsa, propaganda
Companies: cbs

CBS Airs NSA Propaganda Informercial Masquerading As 'Hard Hitting' 60 Minutes Journalism By Reporter With Massive Conflict Of Interest

from the journalism! dept

Last night I started seeing a bunch of folks on Twitter absolutely trashing 60 Minutes. We had mentioned last week that 60 Minutes would be doing something about the NSA, including the revelation that some NSA officials favored granting Snowden asylum, and that Keith Alexander ridiculously stated that people should be held accountable for their actions -- without recognizing the irony of that statement when pointed at himself. What we didn't realize was that the episode of 60 Minutes would be a complete propaganda infomercial for the NSA. Among the many, many, many issues with the program:

• The reporting was conducted by John Miller, a former intelligence community official (who worked for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the NSA) in a spokesperson role and a variety of historical roles in the intelligence community. While he does "disclose" the ODNI role upfront (but not the others), he left out that he's about to be hired in an intelligence role for the NYPD, a deal that has been described as "a 99.44 percent done deal." Also, in the past, when he also worked for the NYPD, he had a bit of a problem with telling the truth. Miller is, clearly, an intelligence industry spokesperson at heart, pretending to be a journalist here.
• There was not a single hard hitting question asked throughout. It was all softballs. Seriously. Many of the setup questions were the same bogus strawmen we've seen the NSA focus on in the past -- concerning things like "is the NSA listening to everyone's calls." But that isn't what people are actually concerned about. At no point did they appear to even attempt to ask followup questions when the NSA people made clearly misleading statements, such as those concerning the surveillance of "US persons."
• Not a single critic of the NSA was shown during the entire episode. Seriously. Not a single claim by the NSA was refuted or pushed back on. At all. Basically, Miller served up softballs, the NSA hit 'em back, and the "investigative journalists" at 60 Minutes said, "Wow, isn't that amazing!"
• They admit that they did this piece because the NSA "invited them in." In other words, this was purely a propaganda piece from the very outset. The most hysterical thing to watch is the "overtime" bit that they have on the website in which they explain how 60 Minutes got to do this story on the NSA, which reveals that basically the NSA asked them to do this puff piece and then controlled every second of the process. There are even a few outtakes where the NSA "handlers" cut off parts of interviews to tell people what to say.
• Miller claims he spoke to NSA critics and asked them what they would ask, but that's not reflected in the questioning at all. He then defends the piece saying that his goal was to let the NSA explain its side of the story, which he argues wasn't getting enough attention. Seriously.

  Because this is really the side of the story that has been mined only in the most superficial ways. We’ve heard plenty from the critics. We’ve heard a lot from Edward Snowden. Where there’s been a distinctive shortage is, putting the NSA to the test and saying not just ‘We called for comment today’ but to get into the conversation and say that sounds a lot like spying on Americans, and then say, ‘Well, explain that.’”

  Try not to laugh at that. He even claims that he didn't want it to be a puff piece -- which is exactly what it was.
• The one big "revelation" in the piece involves NSA people implying, but never actually saying, how they stopped some sort of plot to turn everyone's computers into bricks by infecting the BIOS. But, as lots of people who actually understand this stuff are noting, that segment was pure gibberish:

  There are no technical details. Yes, they talk about "BIOS", but it's redundant, unrelated to their primary claim. Any virus/malware can destroy the BIOS, making a computer unbootable, "bricking" it. There's no special detail here. All they are doing is repeating what Wikipedia says about BIOS, acting as techie talk layered onto the discussion to make it believable, much like how Star Trek episodes talk about warp cores and Jeffries Tubes.
  
  Stripped of techie talk, this passage simply says "The NSA foiled a major plot, trust us." But of course, there is no reason we should trust them. It's like how the number of terrorist plots foiled by telephone eavesdropping started at 50 then was reduced to 12 then to 2 and then to 0, as the NSA was forced to justify their claims under oath instead of in front of news cameras. The NSA has proven itself an unreliable source for such information -- we can only trust them if they come out with more details -- under oath.
  
  Moreover, they don't even say what they imply. It's all weasel-words. Nowhere in the above passage does a person from the NSA say "we foiled a major cyber terror plot". Instead, it's something you piece together by the name "BIOS plot", cataclysmic attacks on our economy (from the previous segment), and phrases like "would it have worked".

• Part of the piece, bizarrely, focused on smearing Ed Snowden based on a completely out of context statement about how he would work at home with a sheet over his head to keep work secret. Given the realities of what the NSA is doing, and what Snowden was up to, that doesn't sound so strange. Yet, Miller (not the NSA), made it out like Snowden was a wack job for this:

  John Miller: At home, they discovered Snowden had some strange habits.
  
  Rick Ledgett: He would work on the computer with a hood that covered the computer screen and covered his head and shoulders, so that he could work and his girlfriend couldn't see what he was doing.
  
  John Miller: That's pretty strange, sitting at your computer kind of covered by a sheet over your head and the screen?
  
  Rick Ledgett: Agreed.

There was more, but it's more of the same. You have the producers of the episode oohing and ahhing about how the NSA's headquarters looked like something out of Star Trek, and how they had to fight hard to get the NSA to open a door for the NSA's "black chamber" -- showing a couple of cubicles.

Coming so soon on the heels after 60 Minutes totally bungled a report on Benghazi, you would think that the once respected news program might try a little harder not to post something so obviously ridiculous. But, apparently not. While many have suggested that the NSA communications people should get a raise for pulling off such pure propaganda, some are pointing out that the whole thing was so obviously a bogus puff piece that no one's buying it. Anthony DeRosa has put together a series of tweets about the episode and hasn't yet been able to find a single person who reacted positively to it. Not a single one.

It's no secret that the NSA isn't very good at PR but, in this case, not only may they have harmed their case, they helped CBS News shoot themselves in the foot, yet again, over whatever shreds of journalistic credibility they may have had.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, cbs news, conflict of interest, ed snowden, john miller, journalism, keith alexander, nsa, propaganda, surveillance
Companies: cbs