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

from the i-seeeeeeee-you dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Holder Should Condemn James Clapper Calling Journalists 'Accomplices'

from the and-obama-should-fire-clapper dept

We already pointed out James Clapper's ridiculous prepared remarks that referred to journalists as "accomplices" with Ed Snowden. In that post, we noted that Eric Holder had gone through a bit of controversy a year ago when it was revealed that the DOJ had claimed to a court that a reporter was involved in a crime in order to get access to his sources -- and that Holder had promised that the DOJ would not target journalists. As Holder said at the time:

"The Department has not prosecuted, and as long as I’m attorney general, will not prosecute any reporter for doing his or her job," Holder told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

DOJ's goal, Holder said, is to "identify and prosecute government officials who jeopardize national security by violating their oaths, not to target members of the press or discourage them from carrying out their vital work."

He has further stated (in a separate Congressional hearing) that the DOJ is already using these new guidelines, which make it clear they are not to target journalists.

And then Clapper makes his idiotic statement.

That leaves open the obvious question, asked by Trevor Timm at the Freedom of the Press Foundation: will Eric Holder condemn Clapper's remarks?

If Holder wants to stay true to his word, the Justice Department should repudiate Clapper’s remark immediately. Journalists do not become “accomplices” or “co-conspirators” by reporting newsworthy information. They’re just good journalists.

Oh yeah, and this:

Journalism is not a crime. On the other hand, lying to Congress is.

Filed Under: accomplices, chilling effects, ed snowden, eric holder, james clapper, journalism

Chilling Effects: James Clapper Tells Congress That Journalists Are Ed Snowden's 'Accomplices'

from the wtf? dept

While there have been some occasional nutty attempts to paint journalists reporting on the documents that Ed Snowden revealed as being somehow legally at risk for doing so, for the most part, US officials have recognized that we do respect the freedom of the press in this country. This has been in stark contrast to the UK, where a whole investigation is ongoing into The Guardian's role in reporting on the documents. However, that changed this morning, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee to deliver his "Worldwide Threat Assessment."

In his prepared statement, Clapper made it clear that he views the journalists who have copies of the documents as "accomplices" to Snowden -- who has been charged with violating the Espionage Act. As he said:

Snowden claims that he's won and that his mission is accomplished. If that is so, I call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed to prevent even more damage to U.S. security.

While some may claim that this is just a passing phrase, this is a written statement from James Clapper to Congress, meaning it was vetted many, many, many times, and the word choices are clear and specific. As Glenn Greenwald has noted, the implication is not at all subtle. The Obama administration has now officially stated that it views journalists reporting on Snowden documents as "accomplices" to a crime:

Who, in the view of the Obama administration, are Snowden's "accomplices" The FBI and other official investigators have been very clear with the media that there is no evidence whatsoever that Snowden had any help in copying and removing documents from the NSA.

Here, Clapper is referring to "accomplices" as those who can "facilitate the return of the remaining" documents. As Snowden has said, the only ones to whom he has given those documents are the journalists with whom he has worked. As has been publicly reported, the journalists who are in possession of thousands of Snowden documents include myself, Laura Poitras, Barton Gellman/The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Guardian, and ProPublica.

Is it now the official view of the Obama administration that these journalists and media outlets are "accomplices" in what they regard as Snowden's crimes? If so, that is a rather stunning and extremist statement. Is there any other possible interpretation of Clapper's remarks?

That is absolutely crazy. Even more ridiculous is that ODNI's public affair director more or less confirmed the point:

The office's public affairs director Shawn Turner said in an email that “director Clapper was referring to anyone who is assisting Snowden to further threaten our national security through the unauthorized disclosure of stolen documents related to lawful foreign intelligence collection programs.”

Of course, just last year (prior to the Snowden leaks), there was a bit of a scandal when it was revealed that the DOJ was claiming to courts that certain journalists were accomplices in order to spy on them to get access to their sources. That controversy resulted in Attorney General Eric Holder promising new guidelines to stop targeting journalists. And, just today, Holder told Congress that those new rules are already in effect.

Clapper's choice of words here was deliberate. Even if the government doesn't go after any of the journalists with Snowden's documents, the message today's statement made is loud and clear: we can go after you and charge you criminally. And that's an incredibly chilling message in a country that is supposed to respect the freedom of the press.

Filed Under: accomplices, chilling effects, ed snowden, james clapper, journalism, journalists, senate intelligence committee

New York Times Suffers Redaction Failure, Exposes Name Of NSA Agent And Targeted Network In Uploaded PDF

from the make-sure-to-dot-all-i's-and-blot-out-all-sensitive-info dept

It appears as if the New York Times, in its latest publication of leaked NSA documents, failed to properly redact the PDF it uploaded, exposing the name of the NSA agent who composed the presentation as well as the name of a targeted network.

Cryptome seems to have been the first site that noticed the redactions that actually weren't, issuing a couple of tweets that informed its followers of this fact. This led to Bob Cesca at the Daily Banter turning the NYT's error into an anti-Snowden rant (which I found via F-Secure's blog) that decried everyone involved while "virtuously" refusing to name the entity that had discovered the poorly-done redactions (but including the uncredited tweets in full for easy searching).

As soon as the article was posted, someone from or associated with a popular cryptography website claims to have downloaded a pdf of the Snowden document from The New York Times and discovered that three of the redactions that were intended to obscure sensitive national security information were easily accessible by highlighting, copying and pasting the text. The poorly-redacted file was subsequently posted to the cryptography website, then promoted via Twitter. (We’re not going to post the name of the website that posted the file to protect the information contained within.)

…

So, the identity of an NSA agent is out there in public view within the same document in which a target of this program is named. All of this is due to the incompetence of whoever failed to properly redact the pdf before publishing it for the world to see — as well as for the aforementioned cryptography site to nab and republish it.'

…

This was bound to happen at some point in this ongoing saga: the name of an American agent has been leaked to the public via a document stolen by Edward Snowden. To add to the irresponsibility of how Snowden went about this operation, he distributed untold thousands of documents to a gaggle of technological neophytes who barely understand how to used Adobe Acrobat, much less the phenomenally complicated details of top secret NSA operations.

Cesca somehow feels the privacy of a single NSA agent trumps the public's interest in infringements on their own privacy -- not just here in the US but all over the world. Certainly, the New York Times should have made sure its redactions were actually redactions before publishing the document, but Cesca's hyperbolic attack isn't doing his side any favor.

One agent's name was exposed, one who may not even be employed by the agency at this point. (The documents are from 2010.) The target revealed is nothing more than the Al Qaeda's "branch operation" in Mosul, Iraq. Al Qaeda has been the focus of counterterrorism efforts since before the 9/11 attacks and the revelation that the NSA is targeting mobile networks in Mosul shouldn't come as a shock to anybody, least of all Al Qaeda members.

This doesn't excuse the NYT's carelessness, however. It is disseminating some very sensitive NSA documents and should be ensuring any information it chooses to withhold stays withheld. But this error doesn't invalidate Snowden's exposure of the NSA's programs, no matter how Cesca (and those like him) spin it.

The NSA and other government agencies have suffered redaction failures as well, accidentally exposing information they would rather have withheld from the public. Does the government get held to the same standard by the NSA's booster club? Hardly. Humans make mistakes, no matter which side of this issue they're on.

[The original document uploaded by the NY Times is posted below (via Cryptome). To see the unredacted text, simply click on the Text tab.]

Filed Under: ed snowden, errors, journalism, nsa, redactions
Companies: ny times

Journalism! MSNBC Cuts Off Congresswoman Talking About NSA To Get To 'Breaking News' About Justin Bieber

from the priorities dept

If you haven't yet, you should watch this 25-second clip of MSNBC "reporter" Andrea Mitchell cutting off Congresswoman Jane Harman just as she was explaining why the government needs to end the Section 215 bulk phone records collection program that spies on all Americans... in order to rush to cover the "breaking news" of Justin Bieber's court appearance live. Yes, apparently, making sure they cover Bieber's bond hearing live is more important than discussing the US government surveilling every American illegally. Of course, an argument can be made that this is what the American public wants, though that's partly because the cable news programs have learned since the OJ era that nothing gets viewers like covering a high profile court case to an extreme level.

Filed Under: andrea mitchell, cable news, jane harman, journalism, justin bieber, msnbc, nsa, section 215, sensationalism
Companies: nbc universal

Purdue Cops Throw Student Journalist To Ground, Seize His Camera And Detain Him For Three Hours

from the we'll-let-you-know-what-your-rights-are-once-we've-finished-violating-th dept

Cops vs. cameras: the apparently never ending battle continues. A student photojournalist at Purdue found himself on the receiving end of a little extra "attention" while attempting to cover Tuesday's on-campus shooting.

In the midst of Tuesday’s shooting, an Exponent employee was detained by the police while trying to fulfill his journalistic duties.

Exponent photo editor Michael Takeda, a junior in the College of Technology, was slammed to the ground by the Purdue Police after being found in the Electrical Engineering Building taking photos. The area had not been closed off to the public at the time.

The officers confiscated Takeda’s camera and photos, detained and questioned his whereabouts within the building, which was then on lockdown after being held by the police for roughly three hours.

While it's somewhat understandable that the campus police might be a bit on edge while looking for a shooter, that doesn't excuse any of the actions they took when they came across Takeda. (You can see his article on the shooting here.) It shouldn't have taken three hours to determine whether Takeda was involved in the shooting and his presence in a building that hadn't been "locked down" should not have been greeted with the use of force. Those who say people who are "doing nothing wrong" shouldn't fear police officers might want to reexamine that assertion in light of Takeda's experience. One also wonders whether the presence of the camera escalated the officers' physical response.

The police finally let Takeda go after detaining him for three hours but they had no interest in returning his equipment to him until someone higher up the ladder at Purdue interceded on his behalf.

[I]it was only after Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, prodded the University that Takeda’s belongings were bequeathed to him.

“They were very cooperative, and they recognized right away that this was a serious situation that required their immediate attention,” LoMonte said.

LoMonte said, though the University was helpful in releasing Takeda’s belongings, it was just the police’s instinct to retrieve his belongings, despite the possible infringement of a federal law.

By "retrieve," I assume LoMonte means "seize." Notwithstanding this oral typo, what LoMonte says next is both unsurprising and sad.

“Honestly I think almost nobody knows that is the law, not even lawyers,” LoMonte laughed.

LoMonte may be laughing but I don't think I'll be joining him. People who are charged with enforcing laws or keeping clients out of jail should be familiar with the laws that are an integral part of their jobs. The law LoMonte refers to isn't a recent development prompted by the ubiquity of smartphone cameras. It's been on the books for more than 30 years and was crafted in response to an incident at another college, Stanford University.

“(It) specifically says that the police cannot confiscate or search where journalists keep their unpublished work product unless they first go in front of a judge and give the journalist the chance to argue his side,” LoMonte said

Now, police have ways around this limitation -- the always-useful "exigent situation" exception. This is supposed to be used only when the safety of officers or the public is immediately threatened. In reality, the exception is most frequently used to ask for post-rights violation "forgiveness." The Purdue officers didn't cite this exception, but it will probably be deployed if Takeda decides to make some more noise about his treatment. Is it really too much to ask for law enforcement officers to know and respect the laws governing their actions?

Filed Under: journalism, michael takeda, photography is not a crime, police brutality, purdue
Companies: purdue university

Are Other NSA Employees Leaking Documents Under The Cover Of Snowden?

from the could-be-useful...-could-be-disinfo dept

While we were just suggesting that there are ways that NSA employees who believe the organization has gone too far can make a difference without also leaking documents, some are beginning to suspect that Snowden's activities may be creating at least some copycats -- and the interesting tidbit is that they may be less likely to get caught, because everyone assumes any new leaks are from Snowden. Matt Blaze recently noted that the most recent bombshell concerning the NSA's catalog of exploits, didn't actually name a source. And Glenn Greenwald has hinted strongly that the information is not from Snowden.

That doesn't mean that the information isn't from Snowden. It could very well be from him and just no one's said so. Greenwald's statements may actually be an attempt to solicit further leaks by making it clear that other leakers may be able to hide under the cover of Snowden. Blaze also points out that this possibility certainly runs the very real risk of someone providing false information to credulous reporters. That could come from those just pulling a prank or, more sinisterly, from an intelligence community looking to flood the press with disinformation to dilute and attempt to discredit the Snowden leaks. The intelligence community has certainly been involved in such campaigns in the past.

That said, this is a real opportunity for others who would like to blow the whistle from within the intelligence community to potentially do so under the cover of Snowden, allowing them to leak without everyone searching for the new leaker, believing the information is actually coming from Snowden. Still, if that's happening, I hope that the reporters receiving those documents heed Blaze's advice to be exceptionally careful to authenticate the documents, to find additional sources and also to disclose any uncertainty about the authenticity of the documents.

Filed Under: ed snowden, journalism, leaks, nsa, sources, surveillance

NSA's Personal Propagandist For CBS Officially Takes Counterterrorism Job Everyone Knew He Was Getting

from the journalism! dept

When 60 Minutes did its hack PR job for the NSA a few weeks ago, lots of people called out the fact that the reporter who handled the segment, John Miller, wasn't just a former intelligence official working for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (which oversees the NSA), but that he was widely rumored to have worked out a deal for a new job for the NYPD, heading up "counterterrorism." Even though there were multiple reports at the time, including one that claimed it was a "99.44% done deal," when asked about it, Miller lied. He told a reporter, "you know as much about this as I do."

That was clearly Miller lying -- something that Miller has had an issue with in the past -- as the "rumor" is now confirmed and Miller has accepted his job doing "counterterrorism" for the NYPD. And while some might say that doing counterterrorism for a city police force is different than working for national intelligence, that's only because you're not familiar with the NYPD, which has set up something of a shadow NSA/CIA to do all sorts of activities not normally associated with a police force.

And, of course, since the press was clearly familiar with Miller's expected role, it raises serious questions about why 60 Minutes allowed the puff piece to move forward with a seriously conflicted "journalist." While Miller has lashed out at critics, rather than respond to a single point raised, the brand that comes out worst in all this is clearly CBS and 60 Minutes -- which basically let an intelligence official do an entire propaganda piece on the NSA. 60 Minutes used to be about hard hitting journalism. Now, apparently, they think it's "journalism" to shill for the surveillance state.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, cbs news, conflict of interest, john miller, journalism, nsa, nypd, propaganda
Companies: cbs

Bloomberg News Pays Reporters More If They Move Markets

from the financial-meltdown dept

It's become quite common to pay online writers more if their stories cause surges in traffic for the site. It has recently emerged that Bloomberg News has taken this idea much further, as reported by Business Insider:

Bloomberg News has an unusual practice of paying some of its reporters explicitly for publishing "market-moving" stories.

…

We asked Bloomberg about the practice. A company spokesperson acknowledged it.

"It isn't news unless it's true. At Bloomberg News, the most important news is actionable. That means we strive to be first to report surprises in markets that change behavior and we put a premium on reporting that reveals the biggest changes in relative value across all assets."

The Business Insider post points out a danger of this approach:

Most of the people we spoke to, especially traders, were startled to hear about this practice, worrying that it might create an incentive for Bloomberg reporters to "push" or stretch stories with the specific aim of moving markets.

There's also the risk that an extremely volatile situation could go into meltdown as market movements are amplified by Bloomberg writers reporting on the effects of their previous stories, leading to a kind of journalistic positive feedback loop. This wouldn't be so problematic were it not for the fact that these movements can result in major losses and gains for some of the participants. It's easy to imagine companies or even some countries being massively affected by this, which raises the question whether it is ethical for Bloomberg News to encourage such risky behavior by its journalists.

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

Filed Under: journalism, markets, moving markets
Companies: bloomberg

Ed Snowden Sends Open Letter To Brazil... Which The Press Blatantly Misrepresents

from the nice-work,-journalists dept

This morning, a Brazilian publication, A Folha, released a very interesting open letter from Ed Snowden. It's worth reading in full, and we'll include the full thing beneath this post, but first, a few snippets. His summary of the overall situation is key:

Today, if you carry a cell phone in Sao Paolo, the NSA can and does keep track of your location: they do this 5 billion times a day to people around the world. When someone in Florianopolis visits a website, the NSA keeps a record of when it happened and what you did there. If a mother in Porto Alegre calls her son to wish him luck on his university exam, NSA can keep that call log for five years or more. They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target's reputation.

American Senators tell us that Brazil should not worry, because this is not "surveillance," it's "data collection." They say it is done to keep you safe. They’re wrong. There is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement — where individuals are targeted based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion — and these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever. These programs were never about terrorism: they're about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They're about power.

He then notes that some Brazilian politicians have asked for his assistance into researching what the US has done, and he said that he is willing to help "wherever appropriate and lawful" while also noting that the US pulling his passport and showing its willingness to force planes to land when it suspects Snowden may be on board may limit his effectiveness in helping with the investigation. There's a lot more in the letter as well, but the press seems to be summarizing it as "Snowden offers to swap helping investigating spying for asylum." A few examples:

• USA Today: Snowden to Brazil: Swap you spying help for asylum
• The Guardian: Edward Snowden offers to help Brazil over US spying in return for asylum
• CBS News: Edward Snowden reportedly tells Brazil he’ll help probe NSA spying there if granted asylum
• Fox News: Snowden reportedly offers to help Brazil investigate spying if given asylum
• Reuters: Snowden makes case for Brazil asylum, offers help
• ABC (Australia): Edward Snowden wants asylum in Brazil in exchange for help with investigations into NSA spying

All of these seem to think there's some sort of conditional there. Reading the actual letter, that doesn't seem to be the case at all. While he does mention that without being granted political asylum, the US government "will continue to interfere with my ability to speak," there does not appear to be any quid pro quo setup, in which he's asking for asylum. He's just laying out the situation. Furthermore, he later notes the value of being able to speak freely, and how that's more important than where he lives:

My act of conscience began with a statement: "I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That's not something I'm willing to support, it's not something I'm willing to build, and it's not something I'm willing to live under."

Days later, I was told my government had made me stateless and wanted to imprison me. The price for my speech was my passport, but I would pay it again: I will not be the one to ignore criminality for the sake of political comfort. I would rather be without a state than without a voice.

Of course, the absolute worst of the worst in reporting on this was... CNN. They posted a tweet, claiming that Snowden offered to "spy on the US." Seriously. Thankfully, after lots of people reacted angrily to that, CNN chose to delete the tweet. And people wonder why the media business is struggling these days.

Filed Under: asylum, brazil, ed snowden, journalism, nsa, open letter, surveillance