Reporter Barton Gellman Explains Why It's Extremely Unlikely The Russians Or Chinese Have Snowden's Documents

from the he-knows-what-he's-doing dept

Wednesday's Fresh Air on NPR was devoted entirely to a wonderful interview with Barton Gellman, one of the three reporters (along with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald) who Edward Snowden initially gave his complete set of documents to. The whole interview is interesting, though if you've been following this story for the last few months, you'll have heard much of it before. Perhaps the two most interesting sections, however, are his discussions on Edward Snowden's intentions with all of this. Many have ascribed comically nefarious intent. Gellman has a fairly compelling explanation for why that's unlikely. First, he explains that Snowden could have easily just dumped all of these documents somewhere public:

"[Snowden] gave these documents, ultimately, to only three journalists. What he said he wanted was for us to use our own judgment and to make sure that his bias was kept out of it so that we could make our own judgment about what was newsworthy and important for the public to know. And he said we should also consider how to avoid harm.

"Now, in case anyone doubts his intentions, let's consider what he could've done. If Chelsea [aka Bradley] Manning was able to exfiltrate and send to WikiLeaks and publish in whole half a million U.S. government documents, Edward Snowden — who is far, far more capable [and] had far greater access, certainly knows how to transmit documents — he could've sent them to WikiLeaks. He could've set up and mirrored around the Internet in a way that could not have been taken down. All of the documents could be public right now and they're not. ... He told us not to do it."

Elsewhere in the discussion, he goes further:

Writing an editorial about the risk that Snowden... or that implies that Snowden is about to or may already have handed over all of his information to Wikileaks or to the Russians is entirely without evidence. It is pure speculation. There is strong evidence, now three months after his first disclosures, and more than three months after he started giving information to journalists, that he does not intend to make the whole pile public. He could have done it on the first day. He could have done it months before I ever heard of him.

He then goes on to explain why it's incredibly unlikely that Snowden gave the documents to the Russians or the Chinese, despite many assuming that to be the case.

As far as the speculation that the Chinese or Russian governments have obtained access to this information -- that they have the whole pile, so that this alleged judiciousness by the journalists is pointless -- that is not only speculative, I think I have very strong evidence that it is not the case. I know how Snowden operates. I've disclosed some of it. I have not disclosed all of it -- just because he has unmasked himself doesn't mean that there are no confidences left in the relationship.

He is exceptionally skilled at digital self-defense. In fact, one of his jobs, while he was at the NSA, and while he was employed by the CIA, was to teach courses to US national security officials about how to operate in a high-threat digital environment even on untrusted hardware -- essentially how you do secret business overseas without being surveilled by the other side.

I believe that he has rendered himself incapable of opening the archive while in Russia. That is to say, it's not only that he doesn't have the key anymore. It's that there's nothing for the key to open any more. It's that he has rendered the encrypted information literally impossible to open with what he has in his possession. He has told a former Senator in a letter that even under torture he couldn't give the information to the Russians. And that's not a boast about his alleged ability to withstand torture. That is a statement of fact about his capabilities. He simply can't open it. And that means that the Russians can't get it.

Terry Gross then asks about the claim by some that it's hypocritical of Snowden to talk up freedoms and openness... and then run to China and end up getting (temporary) asylum in Russia. Gellman explains, as we and others have in the past, how much of that is due to necessity, in part because of the US government's own bumbling response. But he also notes something more interesting and a bit deeper about Snowden's intent:

I've not heard any statement from Snowden that talks about Russia as some bastion of freedom. He has very practical reasons for being there. I mean, if he flies to some western democracy, he's going to be extradited. He doesn't want to be. It's not, purely, a question of self-preservation, although everyone has those motives. He said early on that he would like not only to expose behavior that he thinks is wrong and dangerous to American democracy, but that he also wanted to set a new kind of model for whistleblowing.

There has never been someone who came out and raised his hand and said "I did it." And there is, for practical purposes, never been someone who did this without having his life pretty much destroyed for a period of time or for a very long time. And he wanted to say "it is possible -- and here's how -- to make public disclosures that you're not authorized to make, and live a full and normal life afterwards." Not necessarily in the United States, but you can start a debate -- that many many people regard as a legitimate debate -- and find refuge somewhere. He obviously did not intend to go to Russia, he told me his first choice, if he had a choice, was Iceland, which is a very freedom protective society. He's in Russia because he got stuck there. In fact, Russian President Putin said that the United States made an elementary error of tradecraft in withdrawing his passport at the moment he was in transit to Russia. The United States actually trapped him there. He did not intend to stay.

Again, some of these answers we've heard or discussed before, including Snowden's letter to former Senator Gordon Humphrey about why the Russians could never get the information out of him. While some people bizarrely assumed this meant he thought he could resist torture, I think most people realized this meant he no longer had access to the documents himself, and thus couldn't give them up.

There's a lot more in the interview, and I highly recommend taking a listen. If only NPR had an embed feature, I'd embed it here.

Filed Under: barton gellman, china, ed snowden, encryption, russia

Former NSA Officer: Wikileaks Is A Front For Russian Intelligence And Snowden's (Probably) A Spy

from the every-time-I-say-it-out-loud,-it-becomes-more-true dept

I used to think that those on the inside -- those actually running the shadowy agencies of the world -- were immune to conspiracy theories. After all, their hidden actions were usually the ignition point for conspiracy theories. Every tiny revelation gets exaggerated exponentially until someone from a Zionist cabal has used Barak Obama's fake birth certificate to obtain a pilot's license and fly a weather-controlling airliner onto the front lawn of the Pentagon in order to trigger a pre-wired explosion that takes down a chunk of the building from the inside.

But those on the inside see all the connections and know the players inside and out. Nothing's surprising and nothing's a conspiracy because there's absolutely no mystery. But maybe it's that lack of mystery that prompts some insiders to conjure up conspiracies linking their enemies du jour to something much bigger than their individual actions. Too much information is just as much of a curse as too little.

To operate effectively, agents must have a clearly-defined enemy. But the real world is often uncooperative and fails to provide irredeemable villains. Incidents like the recent high profile leaks of Manning and Snowden further cloud the issue. Sure, there's the alleged "exceptionally grave damage" to national security, but much of what's exposed hasn't made the citizens being "defended" by the exposed entities any happier, or feel any less safe. So, when the enemies fail to hold the masses in thrall, what's a former NSA agent to do? The usual narrative isn't working and there's no clear consensus that Snowden, Manning or their mutual associate, Julian Assange are villains. Faced with the untidiness of the current reality, former NSA officer John Schindler has built his own "reality," and it's as insane as it is ugly.

From nearly the outset I’ve stated that Snowden is very likely an agent of Russian intelligence; this was met with howls of indignation which have died down in recent weeks as it’s become apparent that Ed’s staying in Russia for some time, along with whatever classified materials he had on his person.

While the second part of Schindler's statement is most likely true (Ed and documents in Russia indefinitely), his opening assertion is supposed to make us believe that a) something repeated often enough is true and b) the "howls of indignation" directed at that assertion have "died down." The two latter assertions are decidedly less accurate.

Schindler has made some previous statements on the Snowden leaks, a majority of them insulting or dismissive. He even found Jeffrey Toobin's hypocritical teardown of Snowden to be quite the thing.

"No Hero" Snowden "a grandiose narcissist who deserves to be in prison" - Jeff Toobin nails it lawyer-style w details

A early editorial of his, posted at Politico roughly three weeks after the first leak, compares Snowden to Phillip Agee, a self-proclaimed whistleblower who was later discovered to be a Soviet spy.

Is Ed Snowden a Phil Agee for the 21st century, with superior technology and more media coverage? We may know the answer soon, but every day he stays under the care of hostile intelligence services renders his resemblance to Agee stronger.

If Snowden is under the care of "hostile intelligence services," it's the US government's own fault. Charging him with espionage leaves Snowden very few options if he wishes to avoid being imprisoned. The documents he obtained clearly point out that pretty much all of Europe has been compromised, with various national intelligence agencies working directly in tandem with the NSA. This leaves a very short list of countries that Snowden would be willing to go to and an even shorter list of countries that would be willing to host him.

So, in Schindler's mind, Snowden is well on his way (if he isn't already) to being a tool of Russian intelligence. That requires a logical leap others haven't been ready to take, even if they disagree with Snowden's actions. They may believe the Russians have gained access to Snowden's stash of NSA files, but few are ready to state publicly that he's part of the Russian intelligence machinery. Schindler points out that Snowden's contact with the Russians preceded his arrival as if that were some sort of proof of his assertions, rather than an indication that Snowden was looking for options that wouldn't immediately turn him over to the US government.

From this leap, Schindler travels to another claim that he backs up with nothing more than "I've been saying this for a long time."

I’ve been stating for a while now that Wikileaks is functionally an extension of Russian intelligence; it’s become a minor meme as a few journalists have decided that such a scandalous viewpoint is worth considering.

Again, repetition does not make things true, and even Schindler hedges this a bit by adding the word "functionally." If Wikileaks' actions sometimes correspond with the aims of Russian intelligence (learn US secrets, perhaps?), then it's "functionally" the same as working for the Russians, according to Schindler.

Of course, for anyone versed in the ways of Russian intelligence, the notion that Wikileaks is a Moscow front that’s involved in anti-US espionage is about as controversial as, say, the notion that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Running false flags, creating fake activist groups, using Western journalists and activists for deception purposes – this sort of thing is in the DNA of Russian intelligence going back to the 19th century and is second nature to them. They call espionage tradecraft konspiratsiya (conspiracy) for a reason.

Now, we have a full-blown conspiracy theory. Being involved in "anti-US espionage" (his terminology for the leaks that made Wikileaks famous) is now an "proof" that Wikileaks is a Russian front. Yes, Russian intelligence has performed all the acts listed, but his assertion is based on what? The fact that Snowden leaked documents, Wikileaks aided him during his trip to Russia and Snowden seeking asylum there? This is adding 1+1+1 and getting 5, because 5 is the number you had in your head the whole time.

Schindler seems to desperately want Snowden to be a tool of the Russian intelligence agencies and feels he has collected enough dots to say that Snowden is definitely in Russia and another entity he doesn't care for (Wikileaks) helped him out. Therefore, Wikileaks is a "fake activist group" created by the Russian government. But he willingly leaps across several logical gaps without presenting any supporting evidence other than "I've said this several times before." In other words, "Source: Me."

He then goes on for a few hundred more words, offering up explanations that actually undercut his argument. He details the efforts of a spy who sold thousands of sensitive Canadian intelligence documents to Russia, and adds this speculation to his collection of "evidence."

Simply put, one must wonder, after nearly five years of Delisle selling the Russians all the Five Eyes TOP SECRET/ SCI data he could get his hands on, how much there really was about NSA, GCHQ, et al, that Moscow didn’t already know. Perhaps Snowden is, if not exactly a patsy, a none-too-clever fellow – Putin today called Ed “a strange guy” – whose main purpose is causing pain and suffering to Washington, DC. Which, let it be said, he has done rather well, thanks to the propaganda offensive waged by Greenwald, Poitras, and their helpers in several countries, with Ed’s purloined information, and who have masked their radical activism under the (thin) guise of post-modern journalism.

Why would Russia seek Snowden if it already had tons of classified info from other nations' intelligence agencies? What possible purpose could he serve going forward? He no longer works for the NSA and the documents he took have already been distributed out to several news agencies. If Snowden serves any purpose to the Russian government, it's to be pointed at as an evidence of the US government's hypocrisy. Every time it demands the return of its "criminal," Putin will be happy to point out that if the situation was reversed, the US wouldn't be placing a Russian dissident with hard drives full of sensitive documents back in the hands of a government seeking to punish him.

The extraneous slams against Greenwald and others doesn't do his argument any favors. If anything, it shows the desperation of this theory. Schindler needs this theory to be true because it justifies all the accusations and barely-veiled contempt he has for Snowden, Wikileaks and Greenwald. If Snowden is now a Russian spy, then these attacks are "deserved."

It is possible that Snowden’s appearance on the radar of Russian intelligence – presumably late in 2012, almost certainly through Wikileaks – actually represents a cover mechanism of sorts for Moscow. Tasked now with an enormous damage assessment and trying to uncover if Snowden had any helpers inside NSA, it seems unlikely that IC counterintelligence experts will have the resources or manpower anytime soon to find the Russian moles who may be deeply embedded inside NSA and related U.S. intelligence agencies.

The theory goes deeper. Now Snowden's not just an active threat, he's also cover for those already on the inside. The more words Schindler expends, the more his post begins to resemble a cinematic thriller whose team of writers couldn't decide on an ending. Instead of picking one (barely) plausible wrap-up, they've opted to use all of them. Schindler wraps it this up with a call for the government to do the right thing and buy into his narrative.

[I]t would be a step in the right direction for the U.S. and Allied governments to start treating Wikileaks like the front for hostile intelligence that it actually is. Right now, President Obama is contemplating bombing Syria and possibly starting a new war in the Middle East. Surely he can find the strength to call Wikileaks what it actually is, a far easier thing to achieve.

Well, good luck with that. I'm sure the administration has enough issues with credibility without publicly condemning a "known" Russian intelligence front like Wikileaks. Even if it were true, without demonstrable proof, the president would look like a raving paranoiac who should possibly be removed from office for the safety of the nation.

Schindler, on the other hand, has no such office or impetus to maintain credibility, which makes it much easier (and safer) to construct a megaconspiracy that caters to his perception of these entities' motivations. If this were even remotely true, don't you think one out of the thousands of pieces written about Snowden would have attempted to paint Wikileaks as a flack for Russian intelligence?

Filed Under: conspiracy theories, ed snowden, john schindler, julian assange, russia, wikileaks

Russia's Latest Idea: An Internet Whitelist For Copyright Materials

from the that'll-work dept

Now that Sarkozy has been thrown out of office, France is no longer producing the steady stream of bad proposals for the Internet that it once generated. That has left an opening for some other country to take its place, and it seems that Russia is keen to pick up where Sarkozy left off. We've been reporting on previous worrying developments there, and TorrentFreak has news on another one:

According to information obtained by Vedomosti, publishers of music, books and software have put forward amendments [to Russia's existing anti-piracy law] which will place a huge burden of responsibility not just on regular websites but also on search engines such as Google and local outfit Yandex.

The proposed amendments center around the creation of a national registry listing all music, software and books. This database will then be made available to search engines and site owners who will be required to consult it before servicing their users with links or content.

The idea is to create a huge whitelist of approved sites holding copyright materials, and Web sites and search engines will be obliged to use it when linking to works requested by users. As we reported back in February, one region was planning to try that approach in order to produce a "clean Internet." That's clearly impossible, and so is the latest proposal -- both in terms putting together a complete whitelist, and trying to refer to it. As Yandex is quoted as saying in the TorrentFreak piece, the idea could have a wider chilling effect on real-time discussions online:

"[If the amendments go through], rightsholders will switch the entire Internet into pre-moderation mode, because sites can not accommodate any comment without full verification of all the materials located on the link in this comment. For the bulk of services, this task is impossible," Yandex concludes.

And it's not hard to see where this approach leads: replacing today's blacklists of sites that are blocked -- child pornography being the most obvious category -- to one of whitelists, which show the approved sites that aren't blocked. That's truly frightening, and not just for Russian users. As we've seen time and again, governments around the world have the awful habit of copying each other's ideas when it comes to regulating the Internet -- but usually only the bad ones. If this approach is brought in, it can only be a matter of time before people start calling for the same in other countries, citing Russia as an example of where it has already been implemented.

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

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, filter, internet freedom, open internet, russia, whitelist

Russia Prepares To Block Tor And Anonymizing Proxies

from the don't-give-them-ideas dept

As more and more countries start introducing Web blocks, some people console themselves with the "at least there's always Tor" argument. Politicians may be slow, but they are not all completely stupid, and they are beginning to get the message that Tor and other anonymous services potentially render their Web blocks moot. It's then not a huge leap for them to move on to the next stage -- banning or blocking Tor -- as Russia now seems to be contemplating, according to this article on Russia Today:

The head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) has personally ordered preparations for laws that would block the Tor anonymity network from the entire Russian sector of the Internet, a Russian newspaper reported.

FSB director Aleksandr Bortnikov announced the initiative at a recent session of the National Anti-Terrorism Committee, saying that his agency would develop the legislative drafts together with other Russian law enforcement and security bodies, the widely circulated daily Izvestia reported.

In fact, according to the Izvestia story (original in Russian), along with Tor, all anonymizing proxy services would be banned too. No prizes for guessing what's behind the latest move:

The news was disclosed after the Russian civil movement 'Head Hunters' wrote a letter to the FSB with a request to block Tor, as it is one of the favorite software tools for distributors and users of child pornography. The FSB replied that the request was directed to the wrong body, as crimes against public health and morals fall under the Interior Ministry's jurisdiction.

However, the FSB graciously decided to get involved anyway:

The FSB official said that the agency initiated the move as internet anonymizers were used by weapon traffickers, drug dealers and credit card fraudsters, giving the FSB an obvious interest in limiting the use of such software.

In other words, banning Tor and anonymizers is a real crowd-pleaser, since politicians can point to lots of bad people that use them. Just like they use the Internet, or postal service: and just as there are lots of good uses of the postal service and the Internet, so Tor and anonymizers are also vital for a wide range of non-evil people, notably activists and political dissidents, both of whom are already under pressure in Russia. But what is a bug for some is a feature for others: blocking Tor -- "for the children" -- would also have the knock-on effect of making it even harder for dissidents and political groups to access information and organize in secret.

Assuming that the proposed law is passed, as seems likely, the worry has to be that other countries will take note and start to think about following suit, probably playing the same populist card of fighting child pornography that Russia's 'Head Hunters' are now employing.

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

Filed Under: anonymity, filters, internet, online, proxies, russia, tor

Why It Might Be In The US's Best Interests To Grant Ed Snowden Full Immunity From Prosecution

from the not-exactly-win-win,-but-close dept

The administration wants Snowden back badly enough that it has let this singular aspect cloud its judgement. Obama recently stated he won't be meeting with Putin, stating Russia's harboring of Snowden as a factor (rather than Russia's multiple issues with human rights). Rather than engage in the debate Obama claimed he "welcomed," the administration is circling the wagons, as evidenced in the petty statement it issued in reference to Rep. Justin Amash's NSA-defunding amendment. Don't govern angry, as they say.

There are plenty of people who believe Snowden is a hero. Many others believe the opposite. The problem is the middle ground is pretty much nonexistent. Allowing Snowden to go free would appease the former, but allow him to continue exposing the NSA's surveillance programs. Locking him up wouldn't do much either, other than allow the government to avenge its embarrassment. It won't stop the leaks, however, at least not if Snowden's "dead man's switch" works as intended. The Guardian is already in possession of thousands of documents. Capturing Snowden will only hasten their release.

Over at the National Review (of all places), Robert Zubrin has a suggestion that might satisfy many on both sides of the issue. (H/T to Reason.)

The United States should give former NSA contractor Edward Snowden immunity from prosecution in exchange for congressional testimony.

It's an interesting angle. Although Zubrin declares that Snowden "certainly violated the law and may have committed treason," there's something to his suggestion. It's certainly preferable to what the US is currently offering Snowden: indefinite detention preceding a trial, which will then most likely be followed by even more detention.

It may not completely satisfy those who wish to see him punished, but it has to be a better scenario than letting him reside in Russia indefinitely, a country whose motives are rarely pure. On top of that, the US can't be holding out much hope the Russians will just decide to turn him over, and the administration simply doesn't have anything to use as leverage.

Pleading, whining, screaming, or demanding that Russia extradite him is simply absurd. Russia never has extradited any defector, and never will, because if it ever did, that would be the last defector it would ever get.

So, as Zubrin points out, exchanging immunity for thorough questioning seems like the best scenario for the US. If nothing else, it will serve to cut through the defensive rhetoric the NSA has deployed and, if Snowden's portrayal of what's happening isn't entirely accurate, that will be exposed as well.

Snowden and NSA leaders should be brought together face-to-face for questioning in public by a congressional investigatory committee, with both parties allowed to make their points and to counter the assertions of the other. If Snowden is lying, it will come out. If the NSA is lying, it will come out. If either refuses to appear, that party will be discredited.

Now, while the idea has its merits and would allow Snowden to return to America without facing a lengthy prison sentence, it's not without its potential drawbacks. (And this is assuming the administration would ever agree to this compromise, which is highly doubtful.)

First off, if the administration would offer this compromise, there is no question that it would demand an immediate halt to the leaks. This works in the government's favor, by both preventing any further exposure of the NSA's programs, as well as limiting discussion to what's been leaked previously -- much of which has already been discussed somewhat openly (if rather opaquely and "least untruthfully"). Using this as the baseline, the government could easily steer the discussion to well-traveled areas, allowing it to keep other malfeasance under wraps.

Second, this discussion will be going on behind closed doors. Access to the Manning trial was strictly controlled. It took a huge amount of effort just to get a transcriptionist into the press gallery. The access here would be even more limited thanks to the subject matter, which will be designated as "classified," even if the subject matter is all over the internet. So, the chances of the public receiving any benefit or new knowledge is rather low.

Finally, this scenario, despite being more balanced than the government's current offering, still favors those who wish to see Snowden prevented from leaking any more documents (or at least, giving the go-ahead from Russia -- the documents are already "leaked"). This would halt any further "damage" and put Snowden in a "his word against theirs" situation that can easily be spun by representatives of the intelligence community.

The government has the luxury, thanks to the programs being classified, of not having to prove any of Snowden's testimony conclusively false. All it has to do is magnify every misstep by Snowden and make loud noises about "exceptionally grave damage to national security" when it's the NSA's turn to answer his allegations.

Ultimately though, all of this discussion ignores the fact that there's a human being in the center of all of this, one that may be willing to make concessions in order to return to his homeland, or go the other way and refuse similar deals on principle. Whatever is most advantageous for both sides of the debate will likely rarely align with what Snowden feels is best for him. Still, the possibility of taking on his former employer and STILL being able to walk free might be very tempting.

Filed Under: asylum, ed snowden, immunity, russia, us

As Russia Expands Its 'Think Of The Children' Laws To Copyright, Agency In Charge Investigated For Infringement

from the the-French-have-a-word-for-it dept

Last week we wrote about how the Russian equivalent of SOPA had been amended in order to ban swearing online. Although that was worth noting for its entertainment value, probably more important is the fact that the same law -- originally brought in to take down sites about drugs, suicide and child pornography -- has also been widened to include copyright infringement, as TechWeekEurope reports:

the law has been extended to include intellectual property, such as films or TV shows (but interestingly, not music). Under the new rules, copyright holders can contact the website and demand for illegal content to be removed, or request a court order and complain to Roskomnadzor. The website is then required to block the access to files within 3 days, and keep them inaccessible until the court decides on the case.

If the website owners refuse to comply with the order, Roskomnadzor will order ISPs to block the whole site.

This is a textbook example of how to bring in broad censorship in easy stages. First, pass new Web blocking laws "for the children", which no politician would dare object to; then, once the machinery for blocking certain sites is in place, simply broaden it to other, more contentious areas -- such as alleged copyright infringement. As the same story explains, over 1700 Russian Web sites went dark last week in protest at the new law, and 88,000 people signed a petition calling for the law to be repealed (original in Russian), just short of the 100,000 needed for the petition to be considered by the Russian parliament, so nothing much will happen on this front now.

Meanwhile, a film distribution company lost no time using the law to file against Vkontakte, Russia's equivalent of Facebook. Although the case was thrown out because it lacked certain corroborating documents, it seems likely that it will be submitted again. Others will doubtless follow suit. Amusingly, though, the body responsible for implementing Russia's extended SOPA law, Roscomnadzor, looks like it might have fallen foul of the new rules itself, as TorrentFreak explains:

The problems date back to July 9, 2013 when a technology audit at Roscomnadzor offices led officers from the Economic Crime unit and the Interior Ministry to seize five computers suspected of containing unlicensed software.

According to preliminary information from local law enforcement agencies, two of the seized computers contained unlicensed copies of Photoshop but apparently the problems don't stop there as unlicensed software from Microsoft, Corel and Autodesk was also found.

This is reminiscent of the French HADOPI body also being found to have infringed copyright multiple times. Both cases emphasize just how widespread such unauthorized use is around the world, and why harsh punishments like Web blocks are completely disproportionate when even copyright enforcement bodies find it hard to comply with the law.

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

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, protect the children, russia, sopa

Russia's Version Of Facebook, VKontakte, Offers Ed Snowden A Job In Data Protection

from the he's-qualified dept

Well this is marginally amusing. Now that Ed Snowden is actually in Russia, apparently a bunch of job offers are flowing in -- including from the somewhat controversial massive social network VKontatke, often called "Russia's Facebook," which is apparently hoping that Snowden might help with data protection, especially as the Russian government is looking to have more access and control over VKontatke (which many in the entertainment industry also insist is a major source for infringing content).

One place that had made an offer, [Snowden's lawyer Anatoly] Kucherena added, was VKontakte, Russia's Facebook rip-off, which also gives users access to a massive trove of pirated music, TV shows, and movies. Pavel Durov, VKontakte's founder, has been fighting off official pressure—prosecutorial summons, searches—in part because the internet wilds of VKontakte are one of the last bastions of freedom in Russia, and the opposition does a lot of its organizing through VKontakte, which is Russia's largest social network. In the last year or so, the government wanted to muscle in, and get a share of the company in order to exercise some control over it. So far, Durov has fought them off effectively, including today's court decision not to charge VKontakte under a new anti-piracy law. How's that for irony?

Who knows what will happen, but imagine Snowden helping to secure Russia's main social network from further government intrusion...

Filed Under: data protection, ed snowden, russia, social media, social network, surveillance
Companies: vkontatke

US Officials Freak Out Over Russia Giving Snowden Temporary Visa

from the well-of-course dept

The news of the morning, of course, was that Russia had agreed to grant Ed Snowden a temporary one-year visa, so that he could at least leave the airport (which he promptly did). In response, US government officials seem to have lost all perspective in making it sound like this is the worst offense ever:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called it a "slap in the face of all Americans." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called the development a "setback to U.S.-Russia relations."

[....]

"If these reports are accurate, Americans in Washington should consider this a game changer in our relationship with Russia," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement, calling Russia's decision "provocative" and "a sign of Vladimir Putin's clear lack of respect for President Obama."

A slap in the face? A game changer? Who do they think they're kidding? The White House is being equally ridiculous if only slightly less hyperbolic, in suggesting it may cancel an upcoming Putin/Obama summit:

"We're extremely disappointed," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "We're evaluating the utility of a summit in light of this and other issues."

You know what? These arguments would have a lot more weight if they didn't come a day after the US government was able to successfully convict a guy who leaked classified documents to the press in order to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing. And the fact is that the American public is increasingly realizing that, yes, Ed Snowden is a whistleblower, not someone guilty of "espionage." And yet the US government is trying to paint him as some sort of evil hacker spy.

However, the very fact that Congress is actually having the debate about these programs, that the NSA and the FISA Court are declassifying various documents, and that it's clear that the NSA's surveillance powers are going to be somehow limited, seems to support, very strongly, the claim that Snowden was, in fact, a whistleblower. The defenders of the government can whine and moan about this or that, but if they wanted to have any credibility on this topic at all, perhaps they shouldn't have tried to brand Snowden as a criminal when everything that's happened since has proven he's a whistleblower.

Filed Under: asylum, barack obama, bradley manning, ed snowden, russia, visa, vladimir putin

How Far We've Fallen: Attorney General Eric Holder Promises Russians US Government Won't 'Torture' Or 'Kill' Ed Snowden

from the should-have-gone-without-saying dept

If you had any question about how low this country's reputation has sunk or how we're viewed worldwide for our open-ended detainment and torture of uncharged terrorism suspects, you need look no further than Attorney General Eric Holder's "reassuring" statement to the Russian Minister of Justice about whistleblower Ed Snowden's potential extradition.

Holder's letter pointed out that torture is "unlawful" in the United States and that the government wouldn't seek the death penalty, even if "Mr. Snowden were charged with additional, death penalty-eligible crimes."

William K. Black, writing for New Economic Perspectives, points out just how horrifically bizarre this situation is.

The idea that the Attorney General of the United States of America would send such a letter to the representative of a foreign government, particularly Russia under the leadership of a former KGB official, was so preposterous that I thought the first news report I read about Attorney General Holder’s letter concerning Edward Snowden was satire. The joke, however, was on me. The Obama and Bush administrations have so disgraced the reputation of the United States’ criminal justice system that we are forced to promise KGB alums that we will not torture our own citizens if Russia extradites them for prosecution.

When a nation, especially one considered to be the figurehead of the "free world," has to make promises to a former Cold War rival that it won't torture and kill a whistleblower, there can be little doubt that the country has reached its nadir. The US used to shelter dissidents from the vengeance of their former countries and once considered whistleblowers to be a part of a healthy government.

But now we've come to the point where the nation's lead prosecutor has to openly state that torture and killing are off the table, at least in regards to Ed Snowden. How reassuring. The government hasn't "tortured" and killed its other main antagonist, Bradley Manning, but it did hold him in solitary confinement for over three years and his treatment could easily be defined as "torture." (Although not in the only way that counts: the administration's definition.)

Holder's letter has hints of malevolence below the "cheery" no-torture-or-killing surface.

Holder phrased his explanation in a manner that suggests he was trying to be clever: “Torture is unlawful in the United States.” “Gitmo,” of course, is not “in the United States.” The locations of the many secret prisons the U.S. established in other nations were chosen so that we could torture suspects...

More subtly, note that Holder says that torture is “unlawful” – not “illegal.” An act that is merely “unlawful” cannot be prosecuted as a crime. It may provide the basis for a civil suit. An “illegal” act can be prosecuted.

This isn't very reassuring, but then again, a spokesman for the administration feeling compelled to make loosely worded "promises" about torture and killing isn't exactly reassuring either. As Black says, this should have been a forgone conclusion, and yet, AG Holder felt compelled to state this explicitly.

I always took it for granted that no U.S. attorney general would knowingly allow a criminal suspect in U.S. custody to be the victim of torture, raped, branded, or a host of other forms of brutality.

Our country isn't supposed to torture and kill American citizens (although we have no qualms about doing either to non-Americans, which is troubling in its own way). And yet, there's still enough gray area in this statement to make it technically possible. One way the government could get around the whole "we don't torture and kill American citizens [except when we do]" issue is to do what the UK does when one of its citizens is targeted by the US: strip the suspect of citizenship.

In early February, a leaked white paper from the Obama Justice Department caused a small stir, because it laid out an expansive set of circumstances under which the president could order a citizen killed abroad. In September 2011, the US killed Al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US citizens, and a few weeks later a US drone strike in Yemen also killed Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman...

Meanwhile, the UK is stripping people it alleges of having joined militant groups of their citizenship, some of whom have gone on to be killed in US strikes. Stripping people of their citizenship, strips people of whatever protection they theoretically had as citizens under UK law.

The US has already revoked Snowden's passport (although it is offering him a one-time use passport should he choose to return to the welcoming, non-killing, non-torturing arms of the United States). There's no reason it can't revoke his citizenship should it be deemed necessary. All he needs to do is pose an "imminent threat," another one of the War on Terror's endlessly flexible "guidelines."

Of course, something as drastic as stripping Snowden of citizenship (and its attendant protections) is probably the most unlikely outcome. Holder's statement on the US government's intentions for Snowden is worded very specifically, most likely in hopes of preventing Snowden from taking advantage of the additional protection against extradition provided by the United Nations. Back when Snowden was still in Hong Kong, this point was raised by Tim Parker, a local immigration lawyer.

A handover could also be halted if Mr Snowden was believed to be in danger of receiving inhumane treatment in the US, Mr Parker added.

"If Mr Snowden is at risk of being detained under the sort of conditions that Bradley Manning has reportedly been detained, which the UN special rapporteurs have said amounted to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment... then Hong Kong would not be allowed under its law, and could not extradite him to the US."

Making very public statements about torture and killing sounds more like Holder trying to talk loudly enough that the UN will overhear him. If the government isn't going to venture into "cruel" and "inhumane" territory (at least not out loud), Snowden can't reasonably expect to be shielded from extradition by the UN guidelines.

But whatever the administration's rationale for Holder's letter, the fact remains that the US government should never have slid to the disgraceful level where it feels its needs to make public promises about torture and killing. The fact that it has says a lot about the machinations of its anti-terror efforts -- one that turns whistleblowers into criminals and dissenting voices into terrorist sympathizers. If the administration wants to make a small effort towards rebuilding its reputation, it should consider dismissing the charges against Snowden and use the leaked information to open an actual discussion on national security and constitutional rights.

Filed Under: ed snowden, eric holder, nsa surveillance, promises, russia, torture

Russia To Ban Swearing On The Internet

from the bloody-hell dept

A year ago, we wrote about a Russian law that introduced a blacklist designed to block access to information on drugs, suicide and child pornography (all for the children, of course.) Strangely, that same law was then used to silence leading reporters who dared to criticize the government (bet nobody saw that coming....)

Well, Russian politicians are back to thinking of the children now, and want to make further amendments to the law, as this report on the English version of Pravda reveals:

State Duma Deputy Yelena Mizulina intends to make further amendments to the Law "On the Protection of Children." The chairwoman of the Committee on Family, Women and Children put forward a suggestion to punish people for using dirty language in social networks.

According to politician, the pages full of posts and messages containing swear words, will have to be blocked within 24 hours, if harmful information is not deleted. This should apply to pages on social networks, websites, and various forums.

Yes, you read that correctly: the new law would forbid the use of "dirty language" pretty much anywhere online. If the offending phrases aren't quickly removed, the relevant page will be added to the blacklist. The chairman of the Moscow Regional Bar Association, Sergei Smirnov, is all for it:

"Obscene language offends both children and adults. A ban on its use is not an infringement of human rights. This is a direction towards a civilized lifestyle. If we do not use foul language in real life, then why do we use it on the Internet?"

Right: so politicians want a ban on swearing online, because apparently no one in Russia ever swears offline.

That'll work.

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

Filed Under: for the children, free speech, internet, russia, swearing