Obama's Response To NSA Was To Appease The Public, Not Reduce The Spying

from the total-failure dept

We've spent much of the afternoon detailing some of President Obama's statements concerning his response to the NSA surveillance revelations, combined with some of the documents released by the administration. But a key point in all of this is highlighted in the Associated Press's coverage of the press conference: President Obama flat out admitted that this was about appeasing a public that doesn't trust the administration, not about reducing the surveillance.

President Barack Obama made it clear Friday he has no intention of stopping the daily collection of American phone records. And while he offered "appropriate reforms," he blamed government leaks for creating distrust of his domestic spying program.

In an afternoon news conference, the president acknowledged the domestic spying has troubled Americans and hurt the country's image abroad. But he called it a critical counterterrorism tool.

Even more to the point, his comments represent a fundamental misunderstanding of why the public doesn't trust the government. That's because he keeps insisting that the program isn't being abused and that all of this collection is legal. But, really, that's not what the concern is about. Even though we actually know that the NSA has a history of abuse (and other parts of the intelligence community before that), a major concern is that scooping up so much data is considered legal in the first place. So, when President Obama says that we should blindly trust the government not to abuse the data, that's missing the point:

"Understandably, people would be concerned," the president said. "I would be, too, if I weren't inside the government."

That's not particularly comforting.

Filed Under: barack obama, bulk collection, concerns, ed snowden, nsa, nsa surveillance, public, trust

Don't Insult Our Intelligence, Mr. President: This Debate Wouldn't Be Happening Without Ed Snowden

from the the-big-joke dept

One of the more ridiculous claim's during President Obama's press conference on NSA surveillance today was the claim that he had already started this process prior to the Ed Snowden leaks and that it's likely we would end up in the same place. While he admitted that Snowden may have "accelerated" the process, he's also claiming that the leaks put our national security at risk. There is, of course, little to support any of this. Tim Lee has the best response to this so far, noting that it's clearly bogus that this debate would have happened without Snowden:

... the Obama administration showed little interest in subjecting the NSA to meaningful oversight and public debate prior to Snowden’s actions. When Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked for a “ballpark figure” of the number of Americans whose information was being collected by the NSA last year, the agency refused to give the senator any information, arguing that doing so would violate the privacy of those whose information was collected.

In March, at a Congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper answered “no sir” when Wyden asked whether the NSA had collected “any type of data at all on millions of Americans.” We now know his statement was incorrect.

Wyden and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) had also been pressing for almost four years for access to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s legal opinions interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Until Snowden’s disclosures, the senators made no headway. Now, the Obama administration has announced it intends to release its legal interpretation of Section 215.

As Lee's colleague Ezra Klein points out in response, the fact that Obama is still attacking Snowden is simply ridiculous.

“What makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation,” Obama said. “It’s the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process.”

If that’s so, then Edward Snowden should be hailed as a hero. There’s simply no doubt that his leaks led to more open debate and more democratic process than would’ve existed otherwise.

Or, in the shortest possible form, NY Times' reporter Binyamin Appelbaum summed it up thusly:

Obama is really mad at Edward Snowden for forcing us patriots to have this critically important conversation.

This is an important discussion, but President Obama has had five years to have it, and has actively resisted it at multiple key opportunities to do so. To pretend that any of this would have happened without Snowden is ridiculous. At the same time, to insist that people who care about our civil liberties are patriots, while still trying to attack and demonize Snowden, just screams of insincerity on the issue. Snowden should be proud: he did this to start the debate and to create change, and it appears that's happening. But President Obama should be ashamed to pretend that this would have happened without Snowden. It's insulting the intelligence of the American public.

Filed Under: barack obama, debate, ed snowden, nsa, nsa surveillance, patriotism

Obama's Simply Wrong: Whistleblower Protections Would Not Have Applied To Snowden

from the that's-not-true dept

During the Q&A portion of today's President Obama press conference, reporter Chuck Todd asked Obama about Ed Snowden and whether he was a "patriot," after Obama announced some reforms and even directly made clear that those who support civil liberties and greater transparency "love their country" and are "patriots." Except, Obama said that he does not think Snowden is a patriot, in part because he had signed the Whistleblower Protection Act and extended the protections to the intelligence community. This is laughable on a variety of levels, including the Obama administration's actions against other whistleblowers like Thomas Drake and William Binney, who did go through official channels, and then were subject to ridiculous investigations and (with Drake) totally trumped up charges on a bogus unrelated issue.

But there's a bigger point: Snowden actually is not covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act, entirely contrary to President Obama's claims. That's because the act does not cover contractors, such as those who worked for the NSA via Dell or Booz Allen like Snowden did. After the Snowden revelations came out, the Obama administration admitted that it was "looking at" ways to extend the protections to contractors, but at this time (and at the time that Snowden leaked) they do not cover him.

In other words, there were no legal protections under the Act, contrary to Obama's claims, and (worse) it's not as though the government has a history of respecting such whistleblower protections in the first place. Why bother when you can just trump up some other charges on those same people as punishment? Remember that this is the very same Obama administration that has directly declared that anyone leaking documents is aiding the enemy.

Filed Under: barack obama, contractors, ed snowden, official channels, thomas drake, whistleblower protection act, whistleblowers

Rather Than Not Spying On Everyone, NSA Is Getting Rid Of 90% Of Its Sysadmins

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

The latest NSA plan to stop the next Ed Snowden is to get rid of 90% of their sysadmins and automating many of their jobs. I would imagine that more than a few sysadmins might have an opinion or two about the ability of the NSA to really automate away their jobs, but that's an interesting move nonetheless. Here's NSA boss Keith Alexander:

"What we're in the process of doing - not fast enough - is reducing our system administrators by about 90 percent."

Considering that sophisticated techies aren't very interested in working for the NSA these days, perhaps it all works out for them. But, really, another option for avoiding an Ed Snowden like situation might be -- and I'm just tossing this out for suggestion -- is to not spy on everyone and then not lie to Congress and the American public about it. Just a little tiny suggestion.

Also, this more or less confirms what was fairly obvious (due to the NSA leaks by Snowden) that sysadmins have near universal access in the NSA's system, and the recent claims that "only 35 analysts" had access to key information was -- as James Clapper liked to say -- one of those "least untruthful" claims coming out of the intelligence community.

Filed Under: ed snowden, nsa, nsa surveillance, sys admins

Ed Snowden's Email Provider, Lavabit, Shuts Down To Fight US Gov't Intrusion

from the standing-on-principles dept

Early on in the Snowden leaks, it was revealed that Snowden himself was using email services from an operation called Lavabit, which offered extremely secure email. However, today Lavabit's owner, Ladar Levison, shut down the service, claiming it was necessary to do so to avoid becoming "complicit in crimes against the American people." Not much more information is given, other than announced plans to fight against the government in court. Reading between the lines, it seems rather obvious that Lavabit has been ordered to either disclose private information or grant access to its secure email accounts, and the company is taking a stand and shutting down the service while continuing the legal fight. It's also clear that the court has a gag order on Levison, limiting what can be said.

My Fellow Users,

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.

What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.

Sincerely,
Ladar Levison
Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC

Apparently there were just over 400,000 email accounts on Lavabit at the time they shut down -- victims of the US government trying to spy on certain email accounts.

It's not difficult to make an educated guess as to what happened. The Feds went to Lavabit demanding access to Ed Snowden's email. Lavabit refused. The feds went to (secret) court and the (secret) court said (in secret) that Lavabit had to turn over the information. And Lavabit's response is noble: it is shutting down and fighting in court, rather than becoming a pawn in this and compromising the trust and reputation its built up over the years. Lavabit also includes a link on their site for a legal defense fund.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, ed snowden, email, free speech, gag orders, privacy, security
Companies: lavabit

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

Civil Rights Leader And Congressman John Lewis Says Ed Snowden Latest In The Line From Thoreau To Gandhi To King

from the nsa-defenders-losing-the-battle dept

Civil rights leader, and current Congressman John Lewis, is now speaking out strongly in support of Ed Snowden:

Asked in interview with the Guardian whether Snowden was engaged in an act of civil disobedience, Lewis nodded and replied: "In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of Henry David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust, and you are willing to defy customs, traditions, bad laws, then you have a conscience. You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price."

"That is what we did," he added. "I got arrested 40 times during the sixties. Since I've been in Congress I've been arrested four times. Sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it."

Later in the conversation, he notes how worrisome the surveillance program is, and relates it back to how the government treated Martin Luther King Jr. (with whom Lewis worked closely), using overly aggressive surveillance techniques to try to destroy activists and protest groups. As public perception seems to keep growing in support of Snowden, the defenders of the NSA program who are attacking Snowden are going to look increasingly isolated and out of touch.

Filed Under: civil liberties, civil rights, ed snowden, gandhi, john lewis, martin luther king jr.

Obama Cancels Putin Meeting Because Of Snowden, Because Diplomacy Is Like Kindergarten

from the petty-disputes dept

The White House had hinted at this earlier, but now it's been confirmed that President Obama has cancelled a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin because of Russia's decision to grant temporary asylum to Ed Snowden. This seems petty in the extreme. No one honestly thought that Putin would simply hand over Snowden. And, really, of all the things to cancel a meeting about, this is the one that pushes him over the edge? He could have cancelled it over Putin's recent homophobic remarks or Russia's latest focus on censoring the internet or putting activists in jail or any number of other things that generally should offend American sensibilities. But using the Snowden asylum as the reason just seems like the federal government is really losing perspective in this whole NSA surveillance debate -- the one Obama claimed he "welcomed."

Honestly, this whole thing feels like kindergarten-style diplomacy. The Russians took "our ball" and so now we're mad at them and won't talk to them. In an adult world, cancelling a meeting over something like this just looks incredibly immature and petty. It's all for show, rather than any legitimate purpose. I'd rather we had a government that didn't do things for show, but for legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, it seems we're well past having that kind of government.

Filed Under: barack obama, diplomacy, ed snowden, vladimir putin

Brazilian Senators Don 'Snowden' Masks To Protest NSA Surveillance

from the good-for-them dept

During the fight over ACTA in Europe, you may remember that a key turning point was when Polish politicians donned Guy Fawkes "Anonymous" masks to show their disapproval of ACTA and its non-transparent process. We may have just had a similar moment down in Brazil. Glenn Greenwald, who testified before the Brazilian Senate concerning NSA surveillance, noted that a bunch of activists showed up at the Senate with Ed Snowden masks and some Senators borrowed the masks and wore them during the hearings. There don't appear to be any pictures of this yet (see update below), but there are some photos of the activists with the mask (thumbnail snippet below, click for the full version): It still seems like defenders of this program don't realize just how big an impact the revelations are having around the globe. Ratcheting up the silly rhetoric around Snowden hasn't helped matters, other than turning Snowden into much more of a cult hero around the globe (including for many inside the US). The more the US makes a big deal about Snowden and where he's living, the more desperate and arbitrary the US government looks. Politicians in key countries not just supporting Snowden but wearing masks with his face on it shows just how badly the US government is losing the battle for public perception on this issue.

Update: a commenter points out a video clip from Brazil that briefly shows a Senator, Eduardo Suplicy, holding up the mask:

Filed Under: brazil, ed snowden, masks, nsa, nsa surveillance

It's Dangerous For Free Speech When We Confuse Leakers With Spies

from the they're-not-the-same dept

We've tried to make similar points a few times in the past about our concern with the Obama administration going after whistleblowers and the journalists who publish their leaks by using the Espionage Act more than all other Presidents in history, combined (more than twice as much, actually). But the NY Times has a great piece highlighting how the federal government now seems to completely blur the lines between being a leaker and a spy.

“Obama apparently cannot distinguish between communicating information to the enemy and communicating information to the press,” Mr. Goodale wrote. “The former is espionage, the latter is not.”

This is dangerous for a whole host of reasons -- including having an informed and knowledgeable public. But it's also dangerous from a First Amendment standpoint. Remember, the First Amendment protects freedom of expression and freedom of the press -- and both are closely linked when we're talking about whistleblowers leaking information to the public via the press. When we start turning the leakers and the press into "spies" we make that much more difficult, and as a result we have a less free society, and a much more controlling and abusive government.

Of course, some would argue that this is the goal. The very same article quotes former Bush administration apologist lawyer John Yoo -- infamous in part because of his tortured legal defense, twisting the clear meaning and intent of the Geneva Conventions in order to pretend that the US could use torture as an interrogation technique without violating the rules. Not surprisingly, Yoo doesn't have any problem at all with condemning leakers as spies.

“Manning’s defenders will say that Manning only leaked information to the 21st-century equivalent of a newspaper, and that he could not have known that Al Qaeda would read it,” Professor Yoo wrote in National Review Online.

“But WikiLeaks is not The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, and it does not have First Amendment rights,” he added. “Manning communicated regularly with WikiLeaks’ founder and would have known about the group’s anarchic, anti-U.S. mission.”

Of course, Yoo is either woefully ignorant or flat out lying -- neither of which makes him look good. First of all, the Manning/Lamo transcripts make it quite clear that Manning had very little communications with Assange. But, even more important, as research from professor Yochai Benkler made clear, prior to Manning's leaks, Wikileaks was not seen as anti-US in its mission at all. Its earlier leaks had been focused on mostly corporate and government malfeasance around the globe (mostly outside the US), such as with Bank Julius Baer. As Benkler explained:

When you read the hundreds of news stories and other materials published about WikiLeaks before early 2010, what you see is a young, exciting new media organization. The darker stories about Julian Assange and the dangers that the site poses developed only in the latter half of 2010, as the steady release of leaks about the U.S. triggered ever-more hyperbolic denouncements from the Administration (such as Joe Biden's calling Assange a “high-tech terrorist”), and as relations between Assange and his traditional media partners soured.

In early 2010, when Manning did his leaking, none of that had happened yet. WikiLeaks was still a new media phenom, an outfit originally known for releasing things like a Somali rebel leader’s decision to assassinate government officials in Somalia, or a major story exposing corruption in the government of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya. Over the years WikiLeaks also exposed documents that shined a light on U.S. government practices, such as operating procedures in Camp Delta in Guantanamo or a draft of a secretly negotiated, highly controversial trade treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. But that was not the primary focus. To name but a few examples, it published documents that sought to expose a Swiss Bank’s use of Cayman accounts to help rich clients avoid paying taxes, oil related corruption in Peru, banking abuses in Iceland, pharmaceutical company influence peddling at the World Health Organization, and extra-judicial killings in Kenya. For its work, WikiLeaks won Amnesty International's New Media award in 2009 and the Freedom of Expression Award from the British magazine, Index of Censorship, in 2008.

Furthermore, the idea that Yoo has that Wikileaks somehow "does not have First Amendment rights" because it's "not the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal" makes no sense. It's just assuming that because one brand is established and another is new that the established one automatically has greater rights than the new one. That's an argument based on nothing more than historical bias, rather than any sort of recognition of reality. Wikileaks was never focused on the US, but was focused on revealing conspiracies of all kinds -- that the US just happened to be involved in many speaks more to problems with the way the US government works, than to Wikileaks itself.

But there's a larger, more troubling, point in all of this. When we redefine whistleblower and leaker to the point that they're considered "spies," and, at the same time, accuse journalists and media outlets of being co-conspirators and not being covered by the same basic rights that we supposedly honor in this country, the further and further we get from the basic ideals of a free and fair society. Again, those in power don't seem to much care for a free and fair society -- because they're in power. But for people who would like to have a government that actually represents the people, this should be a major concern.

Filed Under: bradley manning, ed snowden, espionage, free speech, leaks, whistleblowing