Secretary Of State: We Must Have A Secure Internet; Homeland Security Secretary: A Secure Internet Makes Us All Less Safe

from the watch-out-for-the-buts dept

Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in South Korea this week about the importance of an "open and secure internet." Of course, that sounds a little hypocritical coming from the very same government that is actively working to undermine encryption, so it seems worth contrasting it with comments made from Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, in which he whines about a secure internet making things better for terrorists. Kerry's speech is mostly good (with some caveats that we'll get to), in talking about the importance of not freaking out over moral panics and FUD:

Freedom. The United States believes strongly in freedom – in freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of choice. But particularly, this is important with respect to freedom of expression, and you believe in that freedom of expression here in Korea. We want that right for ourselves and we want that right for others even if we don’t agree always with the views that others express. We understand that freedom of expression is not a license to incite imminent violence. It’s not a license to commit fraud. It’s not a license to indulge in libel, or sexually exploit children. No. But we do know that some governments will use any excuse that they can find to silence their critics and that those governments have responded to the rise of the internet by stepping up their own efforts to control what people read, see, write, and say.

This is truly a point of separation in our era – now, in the 21st century. It’s a point of separation between governments that want the internet to serve their citizens and those who seek to use or restrict access to the internet in order to control their citizens.

That sounds good... until you compare it to Kerry's cabinet partner Johnson, who was doing exactly what Kerry said governments should not do:

“We are concerned that with deeper and deeper encryption, the demands of the marketplace for greater cybersecurity, deeper encryption in basic communications,” Johnson said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday. “It is making it harder for the FBI and state and local law enforcement to track crime, to track potential terrorist activity.”

Let's not even bother with the question of just what is "deeper and deeper encryption" or why we should have someone who clearly doesn't understand encryption in charge of Homeland Security. But it seems clear that Kerry and Johnson's views here are quite different. Kerry is saying that "governments will use any excuse they can" including bogus claims about "terrorism" and "criminals" -- and yet that's exactly what Johnson is doing.

Of course, later in his speech, Kerry starts enumerating a similar list for any country to use, should they want to control speech as well:

First, no country should conduct or knowingly support online activity that intentionally damages or impedes the use of another country’s critical infrastructure. Second, no country should seek either to prevent emergency teams from responding to a cybersecurity incident, or allow its own teams to cause harm. Third, no country should conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or other confidential business information for commercial gain. Fourth, every country should mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from its soil, and they should do so in a transparent, accountable and cooperative way. And fifth, every country should do what it can to help states that are victimized by a cyberattack.

In other words, here are the guidelines for any other countries to attack freedom of expression and openness online. Just claim it violates one of the list above and the US can't complain. We've certainly seen it happen before. DDoS attacks launched based on claims that it's in "response" to a hacking attempt. Or Russia cracking down on dissidents by arguing that they must be infringing on copyright law.

Kerry's statement is the kind of thing that very few people would argue against. It seems obvious: of course we don't want attacks on critical infrastructure (though, the government likes to define "critical infrastructure" in a manner that best serves its own needs), or corporate espionage. But Kerry defines things in such a broad manner (including the bogus use of "theft" for "intellectual property") that it leaves the US wide open to abuse. Kerry was right at the beginning in arguing that governments will use any means necessary, so why give them this kind of opening? As we've seen for years, when the US beat up on China for not respecting our patents, China eventually "turned things around" by focusing on figuring out ways to use patents to block American companies from beating local Chinese firms in its market.

This isn't arguing that cyberattacks or infringement of intellectual property are good things -- just that giving foreign nations a "open internet, but..." allows them to make use of the "but..." portion to do all sorts of horrible things that suppress dissent and free expression, and then argue that they had to do it, because the US told them to do so. And, of course, it's not just foreign governments, but as Johnson's comments make clear, those at home as well. None of this means to encourage bad or illegal behavior online -- but to recognize that pushing for internet freedom means actually pushing for internet freedom, which is difficult to do when you immediately encumber it with your own set of conditions, and your colleagues are undermining the very foundation of a secure internet.

Filed Under: encryption, jeh johnson, john kerry, open internet, south korea

Dianne Feinstein Calls Bullshit On The 'Threat Assessment' That Said Releasing CIA Torture Report Would Lead To Violence

from the what-violence? dept

As you may recall, in the leadup to the government finally releasing a heavily redacted version of the Senate Intelligence Committee's CIA Torture Report, the state department kept asking for the report not to be released, claiming that they had evidence that the release of the report would cause violence directed at US citizens around the globe. Even Secretary of State John Kerry pleaded with Feinstein not to release the report. We questioned how legitimate these supposed "threats" were, and you may have noticed in the two months since the report was released a severe absence of sudden new attacks that were being blamed on the release of the report.

Feinstein may no longer be the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but she's still on it. And in its first public hearing of the new Congress, she took the opportunity to quiz National Counterterrorism Center boss Nick Rasmussen about the supposed "threat assessment."

Feinstein: And I have one other question to ask the Director. Um, Mr. Director, days before the public release of our report on CIA detention and interrogation, we received an intelligence assessment predicting violence throughout the world and significant damage to United States relationships. NCTC participated in that assessment. Do you believe that assessment proved correct?

Rasmussen: I can speak particularly to the threat portion of that rather than the partnership aspect of that because I would say that’s the part NCTC would have the most direct purchase on, and I can’t say that I can disaggregate the level of terrorism and violence we’ve seen in the period since the report was issued, disaggregate that level from what we might have seen otherwise because, as you know, the turmoil roiling in those parts of the world, not that part of the world, those parts of the world, the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, there’s a number of factors that go on creating the difficult threat environment we face.

So the assessment we made at the time as a community was that we would increase or add to the threat picture in those places. I don’t know that looking backwards now, I can say it did by X% or it didn’t by X%. We were also, I think, clear in saying that there’s parts of the impact that we will not know until we have the benefit of time to see how it would play out in different locations around the world.

Feinstein: Oh boy do I disagree with you. But that’s what makes this arena I guess. The fact in my mind was that the threat assessment was not correct.

As Marcy Wheeler notes, later in the hearing, Senator Ron Wyden also got Rasmussen to admit that he hadn't read the rest of the CIA Torture report, but just the unclassified summary.

Of course, it's no real surprise that the "threat assessment" turned out to be complete bunk, like almost everyone predicted. But since this is Washington DC, there's no accountability on issues like this. It's why the intelligence community can spread scary FUD all day long -- because no one ever calls them on the fact that it's bullshit, and there's no accountability at all.

Filed Under: cia, dianne feinstein, john kerry, nctc, nick rasmussen, senate intelligence committee, threat assessment, torture report

Rogers, Hayden Claim Release Of CIA Torture Report Will Be The Tipping Point For Enemies Of The US

from the you-know,-rather-than-everything-else-we've-done-to-piss-them-off dept

The NSA's many, many surveillance programs. The TSA's security theater. "See something, say something." The DHS and its "Fusion Centers," in which First Amendment-protected activity is viewed as inherently suspicious. The distribution of armored vehicles and high-powered weapons to law enforcement agencies. The FBI's constantly expanding investigative scope and powers. The NYPD's "Demographics Unit." These are all things we do because of terrorism.

Those who believe the threat of terrorism can justify nearly anything are now claiming the threat of terrorism justifies NOT doing something. Daniel Drezner rounds up quotes from current and former officials who believe that the safety of our nation now hinges on not releasing the long-delayed "Torture Report." Joining John Kerry in his statement that the release could have negative effects on "foreign policy" are a host of familiar names, starting with House Intelligence Committee head Mike Rogers.

"I think this is a terrible idea," Rogers said. "Our foreign partners are telling us this will cause violence and deaths. . . . Foreign leaders have approached the government and said, 'You do this, this will cause violence and deaths.' Our own intelligence community has assessed that this will cause violence and deaths."

Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA, echoes Rogers' concerns.

"...[T]his will be used by our enemies to motivate people to attack Americans and American facilities overseas."

As Drezner points out, the narrative these men are pushing makes no sense. According to Hayden, Rogers and (to a lesser extent) Kerry, the release of this report will be the tipping point for our enemies, rather than two lengthy, unending military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan… or years of drone strikes… the United States' constant support of Israel… the revelations of torture occurring at Abu Ghraib…

According to this narrative, terrorists will be more outraged by a damning Senate report than by the previous decade-plus of actions in response to the 9/11 attacks.

I'm sorry, but this is just nuts. There is no shortage of US foreign policy actions and inactions in the region to inflame enemies. The Senate report is small potatoes compared to that.

The release of the report could actually be a net win for the US. Its reputation has taken several hits over the past year, and exposing its flaws to the world -- in hopes of preventing this behavior from repeating itself -- will show our allies, and our enemies, that the nation is stronger than its weakest moments. Delaying the release of the report, or rendering it meaningless via over-redaction, won't send the same message. Instead, it will confirm our enemies' (and allies') worst suspicions: that the US government cares more about maintaining a facade than actually making an effort to rebuild its damaged reputation. Doing what Kerry, Rogers and Hayden suggest -- bury the report until whenever (and at what point will we not have enemies?) -- could actually provide more motivation to terrorists than being open, honest and contrite about the CIA's actions.

Filed Under: cia, foreign policy, john kerry, michael hayden, mike rogers, surveillance, terrorists, torture, torture report

Ridiculous: John Kerry Asks Dianne Feinstein Not To Release CIA Torture Report After Agreement Was Reached To Release On Monday

from the paging-mark-udall dept

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous. We've written plenty about the Senate Intelligence Committee's massive $40 million, 6,000 page torture report, detailing a variety of failures related to the CIA's torture program after 9/11. While the Committee voted (overwhelmingly) to release a redacted 480 page executive summary of the document, and the White House insisted it wanted to do so as well, since then it's become clear that the White House was going to do everything to block it from actually getting out.

Yesterday it came out that an agreement had finally been reached on the redactions and that it would finally be released on Monday. Apparently, the CIA/White House won the battle over the question of redacting pseudonyms -- which was a key fight. Basically, those who have seen the report say that if you redact the pseudonyms, important parts of what happened are greatly distorted (such as who is doing what). But apparently, that's what was agreed to anyway.

However, after everyone started gearing up for the release on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry apparently called Senator Dianne Feinstein to argue that she should "delay" the release of the report, claiming that the timing is "sensitive" and that the US is worried it may mess up a variety of things:

“What he raised was timing of report release, because a lot is going on in the world -- including parts of the world particularly implicated -- and wanting to make sure foreign policy implications were being appropriately factored into timing,” an administration official told me. "He had a responsibility to do so because this isn’t just an intel issue -- it’s a foreign policy issue."

To put it simply, this is a complete bullshit argument. There's always going to be "a lot going on in the world" especially in areas who are going to be upset by the report. There's never going to be a "good" time to release a report that details just how screwed up the CIA's torture program is -- but it's the only way to actually start the process of making things right and making sure that we, as a country don't do that kind of thing again.

In fact, if the government is so damn concerned about the reaction to the release of the report, here's an idea: don't let the government do stuff that leads to a report that will create such a reaction!

Furthermore, the argument that a "delay" is necessary makes no sense either. Beyond the fact that there's always something going on in the world, in this case, they've known that this report was coming for months. To argue they haven't had enough time to prepare is clearly bogus. Back in April the State Department was whining about this as well, but now it's had months to prepare and it's still whining?

Finally, the claims by the State Department that it's just asking for a delay, rather than to shelve the whole report ring hollow. One of the reasons that it's coming out next week is because, after that, the Republicans are back in control, and they've indicated that they'll bury the report entirely. At this point, if Feinstein gives in to Kerry, it seems like the only viable option for getting the report out to the world is to have outgoing Senator Mark Udall release it himself on the floor of the Senate.

Filed Under: cia, cia torture, dianne feinstein, john kerry, mark udall, state department, torture report

John Kerry Should 'Man Up' And Admit He's Wrong About Snowden

from the nothing-wrong-with-admitting-you-were-wrong dept

In two separate TV interviews, Secretary of State John Kerry made some ridiculous arguments about how Ed Snowden should "man up" and come back to the US. This was in response to Snowden's claims that the only reason he's in Russia is the US State Department pulling his passport -- an argument that no one in the US government has ever denied. Given the chance to respond to this, Kerry effectively changed the subject, saying that Snowden can and should come home to face charges. Here was his statement on NBC's Today show:

QUESTION: Well, Mr. Secretary, what about it? Does he have a point? He’s basically saying but for the U.S. State Department revoking his passport, he wouldn’t be in Russia at all.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, for a supposedly smart guy, that’s a pretty dumb answer, frankly. Look, I’m not going to get into the – who he was, what he was. Let me just say this: If Mr. Snowden wants to come back to the United States today, we’ll have him on a flight today. We’d be delighted for him to come back. And he should come back, and that’s what a patriot would do. A patriot would not run away and look for refuge in Russia or Cuba or some other country. A patriot would stand up in the United States and make his case to the American people. But he’s refused to do that to this date, at least.

The fact is that he can come home, but he’s a fugitive from justice, which is why he’s not being permitted to fly around the world. It’s that simple and he knows it.

QUESTION: Have you softened your stance at all with regard to his alleged conduct here? I noticed earlier this year you said that there were disclosures about the NSA made because of Snowden that you yourself were not aware of that constituted NSA overreach. Does that change the calculus at all for you?

SECRETARY KERRY: That’s entirely up to the justice system. Let him come back and make his case. The fact is that he should – if he cares so much about America and he believes in America, he should trust in the American system of justice. But to be hiding in Russia, an authoritarian country, and to have just admitted that he was really trying to get to Cuba, I mean, what does that tell you, really? I think he’s confused. I think it’s very sad.

But this is a man who has done great damage to his country, violated his oath which he took when he became an employee, and yes, in fact, stole an enormous amount of information and released it to the public, to the detriment of his country.

Then, in an interview with CBS he effectively said the same thing, including the ridiculous "man up" statement, which is perhaps even stronger than his silly "that's what a patriot would do" statement above:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, let me ask you about Edward Snowden. He has now given an interview in which he says he was trained by the United States as a spy. How damaging is this disclosure?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, it’s not – it’s the same disclosure that everybody’s known. He very cleverly wraps it into his language about: I was a technical person; I didn’t go out there and work with humans, with other people; I wasn’t working and interacting with human beings. Basically, what he was doing is computer stuff, and that’s exactly what he says. So he wraps it into this larger language.

The bottom line is this is a man who has betrayed his country, who is sitting in Russia, an authoritarian country, where he has taken refuge. He should man up and come back to the United States if he has a complaint about what’s the matter with American surveillance, come back here and stand in our system of justice and make his case. But instead he is just sitting there taking potshots at his country, violating his oath that he took when he took on the job he took, and betraying, I think, the fundamental agreement that he entered into when he became an employee. And the fact is he has damaged his country very significantly in many, many ways. He has hurt operational security. He has told terrorists what they can now do to be able to avoid detection. And I find it sad and disgraceful.

I'm not even going to touch "what he was doing is computer stuff" quote, because that just kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?

But of course, for all this "manly" (actually: sexist and misogynistic) talk, Secretary Kerry is being dishonest and disingenuous. As we've detailed a few times now, Snowden has been charged under the Espionage Act and, as such, he is not allowed to present a "public interest" or "whistleblowing" defense. His motive isn't even allowed to be used in the case at all. So all this talk about "making his case" is ridiculous. Snowden knows damn well that "our system of justice" on issues like this is inherently unfair and biased. Kevin Gosztola has highlighted examples of others who stayed and "made their case" under Espionage Act charges, showing how they were railroaded by a system that is not fair and does not allow them to actually present their case.

Similarly, as one of Snowden's legal advisors, Ben Wizner of the ACLU, points out, no matter what Kerry claims above, Snowden isn't dumb:

“He isn’t blind,” Wizner said. “Snowden saw what happened to other people who faced prosecution under the Espionage Act, and he saw the state of the law, which would not have allowed him to either to challenge the government’s improper withholding of this information in the first place, or to hold up the enormous public value of these disclosures. All that would have been irrelevant.”

So if we're going to use ridiculous misogynistic phrases like "man up," can we at least ask if Secretary Kerry will "man up" and admit that his claims about what Snowden would face back home were not even close to accurate? Or do real "men" like Secretary Kerry think it's appropriate to aggressively lie and mislead the American public? If so, perhaps it's time for someone to "woman up" instead. Though, as Glenn Greenwald points out, Kerry appears to be arguing that a female whistleblower in Snowden's shoes "wouldn't have the same obligation to return home." Or, perhaps (just perhaps) none of this has anything to do with manliness, and folks in the government could stop the macho aggressive bullshit and actually deal with the reality: Snowden blew the whistle on a program that all three branches of government have now admitted were illegal (and potentially unconstitutional). If someone has to "face the music," shouldn't it be the US government?

Filed Under: ed snowden, espionage act, john kerry, man up

John Kerry Claims US Is On The 'Right Side Of History' When It Comes To Online Freedom And Transparency

from the might-still-making-right,-despite-technological-developments dept

Once you've ceded the high ground, it's very difficult to reclaim it. At this time last year, the Secretary of State could have gotten away with the following remarks, but just barely. The NSA documents had not yet been revealed, but the US government had been giving up chunks of free speech high ground for quite some time.

Now, with the NSA's programs exposed, along with this administration's quest to punish whistleblowers and maintain the opacity left behind by the Bush administration, there's no approaching the high ground. But that didn't stop John Kerry -- in his remarks to the Freedom Online Coalition Conference -- from planting a flag halfway up and declaring it the summit. (h/t to Dan Froomkin of the Intercept)

[L]et me be clear – as in the physical space, cyber security cannot come at the expense of cyber privacy. And we all know this is a difficult challenge. But I am serious when I tell you that we are committed to discussing it in an absolutely inclusive and transparent manner, both at home and abroad. As President Obama has made clear, just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we should do it. And that’s why he ordered a thorough review of all our signals intelligence practices. And that’s why he then, after examining it and debating it and openly engaging in a conversation about it, which is unlike most countries on the planet, he announced a set of concrete and meaningful reforms, including on electronic surveillance, in a world where we know there are terrorists and others who are seeking to do injury to all of us.

First off, almost every "cyber security" bill has pushed for security at the expense of privacy. CISPA has done this twice. The new CISPA, being presented by the Senate, does the same thing.

Second, the reforms set up by the administration are hardly "concrete and meaningful." They're shallow and limited and do very little to walk back the expansive readings of outdated laws (something Kerry references earlier in his remarks) that have led to these programs being declared "legal." There is a review currently underway, but almost everything the review board has suggested has been ignored.

As for "examining and debating" domestic surveillance, the president only did so because he could no longer ignore it. The leaks weren't simply going to stop and so he finally "welcomed the debate" he'd been making stand out in the foyer for the past several years.

But here's where Kerry treads deepest on his faux moral high ground.

And finally, transparency – the principles governing such activities need to be understood so that free people can debate them and play their part in shaping these choices. And we believe these principles can positively help us to distinguish the legitimate practices of states governed by the rule of law from the legitimate practices of states that actually use surveillance to repress their people. And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I’ve outlined, I also hope that you won’t let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes.

That last sentence is incredible, in the most pejorative sense. This administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers -- the people who "hold their government to standards" -- than all other administrations combined. And this administration isn't done yet. The infamous "Insider Threat" program, one that tells US government employees to look for warning signs like "dissatisfaction with government policies," began during this administration. Further efforts are being kicked around in the wake of Snowden's departure from the NSA with thousands of documents, including the Director of National Intelligence telling employees they can no longer speak to the media. The CIA spies on the Senate while a Senator sends the DOJ on a mission to find out who leaked bullet points from the still-secret CIA Torture Report to journalists.

As for the prizes, I presume Kerry is referring to the awarding of Pulitzers to journalists who reported on the Snowden leaks. If so, that's a very self-serving statement, considering the government had exactly nothing to do with awarding these prizes and if it was in the administration's hands, those prizes would not have gone to The Guardian and the Washington Post.

Kerry caps it off by casting the internet freedom fight as a battle between right and wrong -- which it is -- but portrays the US government as being firmly on the "right" side.

[T]his debate is about two very different visions: one vision that respects freedom and another that denies it. All of you at the Freedom Online Coalition are on the right side of this debate, and now we need to make sure that all of us together wind up on the right side of history.

This is a very chilling statement, one that suggests the Freedom Online Coalition needs to side with the US government if it wishes to "wind up on the right side of history." As it stands right now, the "right side of history" is almost diametrically opposed to the administration's protection of abusive agencies and persecution of whistleblowers. Kerry's words read more like a subtle threat. Fight the good fight, he says, but never forget history is written by the winners. Your "privacy" will never be worth more than your "security," not when those values are determined by the government.

Filed Under: john kerry, nsa, online freedom, transparency
Companies: freedom online coalition

John Kerry Admits That The NSA Has Gone Too Far; Will He Take Back His Labelling Ed Snowden A Traitor?

from the can-we-move-that-needle-over-to-whistleblower dept

Secretary of State John Kerry is among the many politicians who rushed to call Ed Snowden a traitor -- though, to be fair, he said "traitor to the oath he took to his fellow employees, to the duty he took freely by his own choice." That's not quite the same as saying he's a traitor "to the US," but it's still pretty strong. And yet, now, after more and more information has come out about the NSA's activities, thanks entirely to Snowden's leaks, even Kerry is admitting that the NSA has "gone too far."

"In some cases, I acknowledge to you, as has the President, that some of these actions have reached too far and we are going to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future.

"There is no question that the President and I, and others in government, have actually learned of some things that have been happening in many ways on automatic pilot because the technology has been there and the ability has been there over the course of a long period of time."

So, Secretary Kerry, can you at least now admit that Snowden was a whistleblower?

Filed Under: ed snowden, john kerry, nsa, nsa surveillance

Senate Appropriations Committee Approves Trade Sanctions Against Any Country That Offers Asylum To Snowden

from the is-that-sending-a-good-message? dept

Even as many in Congress seem to recognize just how useful it was for Ed Snowden to reveal how the NSA was misinterpreting the law to collect data on nearly everyone, some still seem to want to go overboard in trying to blame him for telling the truth. The latest is that the Senate Appropriations Committee has supported a plan to instruct Secretary of State John Kerry to work with Congress in issuing sanctions against any country that grants Snowden asylum. Remember now, that this is the very same US Congress that flat out passed a law to give a Swiss bank security guard (and his entire family) asylum after he did almost the exact same thing as Snowden. In that case, some of the very same Senators who are now lining up against Snowden went on and on about how brave and heroic Michel Meili was. And, yet, now they're willing to start an entire trade war because some other country is willing to grant him asylum and protect Snowden against crazy attacks by grandstanding officials? How is that possibly a sane reaction?

Filed Under: ed snowden, john kerry, senate, senate appropriations committee, trade sanctions