Released Documents Show NSA Actually Surprised To Find Itself Portrayed Negatively In Popular Culture

from the we're-just-massive-dragnet-deployers,-not-murderous-goons! dept

The NSA may know lots of stuff about lots of people, but it's still fairly clueless about how the world works. Documents obtained by Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski show the NSA was shocked to find it hadn't been portrayed more favorably in a major motion picture.

The National Security Agency attempted a public relations makeover in 1998 via the Jerry Bruckheimer–produced spy thriller Enemy of the State, but the agency was disappointed it was portrayed as the “bad guys” in the film, internal emails between agency officials obtained by BuzzFeed News through the Freedom of Information Act show.

One employee wrote in 1998, “Unfortunately, the truth isn’t always as riveting as fiction and creative license may mean that ‘the NSA,’ as portrayed in a given production, bears little resemblance to the place where we all work.”

Even in the halcyon pre-Snowden days, it was unlikely a massive government spy agency would be depicted as "lawful neutral," much less "good" in any form of entertainment media. Shadowy agencies make for great conspiracy theories and potentially riveting entertainment (as for "Enemy of the State," YMMV…). Certainly, it's unlikely that the NSA would kill a congressional representative for opposing surveillance expansion and it probably doesn't have any "goons" to send out to intimidate witnesses (that's more of a CIA thing...). But for the NSA to expect it would be portrayed as the heroes -- despite holding meetings with the producers before the film's release -- is a pretty good indication of how isolated it is from the general public.

This brief burst of reality led to a facesaving effort by the NSA, spearheaded by Michael Hayden, who invited CNN to profile the agency to counteract the negative portrayal. Fighting pop culture with pitched puff pieces is a terrible way to rehabilitate a reputation, but that's the NSA for you. It's never going to win hearts and minds. (I was originally going to add some qualifiers to the previous sentence but couldn't find any that worked.) Any effort expended in this area is wasted.

Even more hilarious than the NSA's dismay at this completely predictable pop culture portrayal is its employees' complaints about violated privacy.

“I was standing in the parking lot staring like an idiot, wondering why this helicopter with some strange object underneath it was hovering over me,” one employee complained after a production helicopter flew above the agency to get establishing shots. “Will Touchstone be getting in touch with me so I can get paid for my appearance in this movie? Because I have no intention of allowing my image to be used for free,” the employee concluded, unaware of public access laws…

One employee fretted that their car would now be seen in the film, while another complained that his window blinds were up during filming.

Yes, you can fly an aircraft over the NSA headquarters and no one can do anything about it. As long as you follow the FAA guidelines, you can capture establishing shots or vehicles in the parking lot or any "idiot" staring at your aircraft. The NSA is not a military base and very little about what goes on inside can be determined from 500 feet above the building.

Still, as Kaczynski notes, the negative portrayal of the agency and the intrusion of unwanted aerial "surveillance" did little to stifle employee enthusiasm for the upcoming film. Unfortunately, the released documents do not contain post-viewing comments from NSA staff after they'd shelled out $5 for the dubious privilege of watching their big screen counterparts murder a congressman and intimidate a witness.

Filed Under: culture, enemy of the state, nsa, pr, propaganda, surveillance

Adrian Lamo On The Stand: 'Did Manning Ever Say He Wanted To Help The Enemy?' 'Not In Those Words, No.'

from the 20-years-for-attempting-to-upset-the-status-quo dept

Bradley Manning is currently on trial, charged with "aiding an enemy" (including "classified" enemies) for turning over sensitive documents to Wikileaks. As Mike pointed out earlier, this latter charge doesn't add up. Manning never handed over anything directly to any enemies of America, classified or otherwise, and any documents these unnamed enemies had in their possession were already publicly available.

Adrian Lamo, the ex-hacker who turned Manning over to the feds (or rather, the Dept. of Defense with some assistance from the FBI), was on the stand on June 4th. Under cross examination by David Coombs of Manning's defense team, Lamo is unable to say Manning intended to "aid the enemy" by releasing these documents. In fact, Coombs exchange with Lamo depicts Manning as someone with idealistic aims who hoped that bringing governmental and military wrongdoing into the light would help change both entities for the better.

Q. At one point you asked him what his end game was, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And he told you, hopefully worldwide discussions, debates and reforms?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he said he wanted people to see the truth?
A. Correct.
Q. He said without information you can't make informed decision as a whole?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he told you to, he was hoping that people would actually change if they saw the information?
A. Correct.

At one point, the discussion turned to the possibility of aiding US enemies, but Manning still refused to view the information he had acquired as anything other than a contribution to public knowledge.

Q. And at one point you asked him why he didn't just sell the information to Russia or China?
A. Correct.
Q. And he told you that the information belonged in the public domain?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. He believed that information was in the public domain and should be for the public good?
A. Yes.

And when the questions became more direct, Lamo's answers became correspondingly vague.

Q. At anytime did he say he had no loyalty to America?
A. Not in those words, no.
Q. At anytime did he say the American flag didn't mean anything to him?
A. No.
Q. At anytime did he say he wanted to help the enemy?
A. Not in those words, no.

In what words, then? The transcripts of the chats between Lamo and Manning are public. There's no indication Manning wished to aid the enemy. There was the potential for harm to exposed operatives and sources, but that was greatly mitigated by the delay between delivery and publication of the documents, not to mention Lamo bringing this to the FBI's attention after the initial chat session. But the military has chosen to view the embarrassment and inconvenience caused by the documents' release as "aiding the enemy" -- whatever hurts us makes them stronger.

Filed Under: adrian lamo, bradley manning, enemy of the state, trial
Companies: wikileaks