Edward Snowden, America's disowned
international man of anti-secrecy, recently sat down with a German news
organization to discuss his life, now infamous NSA revelations, and hopes for
the future.[1]
According to a couple of unconfirmed sources in the blogosphere this interview
is apparently slowly being taken down from various w
Character
I must begin where the mass media so often
falters. They call Edward Snowden many names from traitor to turncoat, you do
not get that impression from the well dressed, clean cut, articulate man who
sat down for this interview. Despite regularly having threats made on his life
from government officials he still speaks softly with candor and conviction.[2]
The interview started with many aspects of
Snowden's personal life. For example, Snowden admits that he has always been a
lover of computers and electronic technologies even from an early age, which
explains his prodigious proficiency and skill. He is also asked about his
former desire and attempt to become a US Army Ranger during the Iraq war.[3]
This piece of information often raises eyebrows. Why would a lifelong computer
geek turned human rights activist (his words, not mine) ever want to train with
an elite fighting force? “Not all Special
Forces are combat units”, he argued. His desire to participate was precipitated
by the notion that he could become a specialist
who could be dropped behind enemy lines to empower the local population with
skills and resources that would "allow them to determine their own
destiny." Snowden never got that change because he broke both of his legs
during training and was discharged, but his skills were nevertheless noticed and
recruited. He didn't want to talk directly about how he was recruited
only that he was. He worked for the CIA and as a contractor for the NSA through
a company called Booz Allen Hamilton.[4]
When asked for the reason he made his now
famous revelations he pointed to one instance in particular when James Clapper,
the Director of National Intelligence, blatantly lied to Congress under oath
about the NSA's spying apparatus. When asked whether they collected bulk data
on American citizens he simply responded "no".[5]
Snowden believed (and still believes) that this lie was in direct conflict with
the values of transparency and public knowledge essential to the democratic
process. He felt it his moral duty given his unique technological capabilities
and access to leak the extent of this lie by releasing the NSA's capabilities for
the public good. Snowden used the phrase "for the public good"
more times than any other phrase in this interview. His second most used phrase
was (loosely) “journalistic value judgments.”
The interviewer several times asked Snowden
about the extent of the NSA's surveillance from “how many German leaders had
been spied on” to “whether information on German citizens was given directly to
the German government by the NSA's surveillance apparatus” (blatantly illegal).
Each time he was asked about the specifics of the spying apparatus Mr.
Snowden—though he had the answers—differed to the integrity of those
journalists to whom he had given the information. Though he is painted by a
large cross section of the mass media as a power hungry attention-hog he made
it very clear that his intention was not to divulge more information than
journalists thought necessary or prudent. That is not the character of a
megolomaniac, but a whisteblower concerned with the state of our democracy.
That is the man Edward Snowden.
What continues to fascinate more than the
character of Edward Snowden is the content of the revelations themselves. I
could go on for days about what has thus far come to light, but for the sake of
brevity I will limit myself to two salient points from this particular
interview: catalysts and capabilities.
Catalysts
Firstly, who
is involved in the global spy machine? Snowden refers to a group of five
countries that are Orwellianly referred to as the "Five Eyes". These
countries—US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—comprise a pack of
post-WWII anglo-allied states that have agreed to cooperate and share the cost
and resources of international spying with each other. All five have agreed not
to target citizens in each others countries however the documents that bind
them make it perfectly clear that these laws are not intended to restrict movement,
but simply to maintain state sovereignty. In other words, the UK is not suposed
say "OK NSA, can you keep an eye and a trace on British citizens X, Y, and
Z?” They aren’t supposed to do it themselves because that would be illegal
under their own laws. However, they do not
restrict each other from gathering
bulk data from wherever,
drawing their own conclusions, and sharing that data with each other. In
essence, they break each other’s laws for each other so as not to break their
own laws.
So, If a collection of "allied
intelligence agencies" (God, it sounds like a world war pack) can gather
bulk amounts of data and share it with each other the next logical question
would be: what kind of data can they
gather?
Capabilities
Mr. Snowden several times mentions the
difference between targeting individual
citizens and gathering bulk data. The
former he argues is much harder to justify without the specific order from a
FISA court (though it does happen on a regular basis), but the latter he
reveals happens en toto. A few times during the interview he points out
that if you (yes, you reading this)
turn on your smartphone, swipe a credit card, shop online, log into a network,
check your email, receive an SMS etc. then you are leaving a digital
fingerprint that the NSA (and consequently those in within the circle of
trust) has the capacity and capability to record and track. They even
have the ability to tag any activity
that they feel is suspicious, which makes every move the person in question
makes vulnerable to being tracked in real-time on an individual basis.
Through a front end search engine program
called “XKeyScore” the NSA literally has the ability to track anything that any
of us do that has a digital imprint.[6]
It can access global communications from email addresses; networks that tagged
individuals have accessed; and even build webs of associations. Due to weak
security protocols built into corporate, government, and foreign servers the
NSA has free reign into every piece of digital information. President Obama
even alluded to this capability in his "major speech on intelligence
gathering" when he asserted that though the government could gather
all this data doesn't mean that they should, thereby implying that they could
(!)[7]
Now, if the NSA and their partners can gather
every bit of digital information what kind are they targeting? Are they sticking with political concerns or extending
further? While Snowden did not want to get into the specifics, due to his
commitment to journalistic considerations, he did say—albeit vaguely—that NSA
spying was not limited to security concerns but also included economic
espionage on behalf of US interests as well.
All this he asserted was the direct result of
privatizing security functions. Keep in mind that Snowden had access to all
this sensitive information as a result of his position as a contractor for the
NSA (staffing the XKeyScore station) through Booz Allen. These for-profit
corporations—he argues—do not have the public interest in mind, but are by
definition profit-driven. Therefore, because they have the capability to do so these corporations make the argument to
government agencies that there is a need to gather every piece of
digital data. The consequences are such that private citizens with very little
authority or supervision are given access to almost every bit of digital data
for profit, not the public good.
Consequences
When asked about the political consequences of
his actions Snowden characterized the official response as a "circling of
wagons". At first President Obama condemned Snowden's actions as the
immature acts of an attention seeking misguided traitor. Since then the
administration has begun to acknowledge the overreach of the NSA and has even
formed a panel to investigate the legality and efficacy of the programs. Though
the panel was made up of Obama's people—according to Snowden—they nevertheless
have issued statements condemning the breadth of the program and offering
recommendations for systematic reforms.[8]
The only act they found that was even close to being worthy of consideration
that had been flagged as a result of the NSA programs was an $8,500 wire
transfer from a cab driver. Hardly worth a systematic dismantling of civil
liberties.
"What then shall we do?" was the
question inevitably asked at the end of the interview. Will the law change? One
option the interviewer suggested was creating "national Internets"
that could house their own data. Snowden's response was as poignant as it was
cheeky: “’walled gardens’ aren't going to keep the NSA out.” Though national
Internets may raise the level of sophistication of gathering the data, if the
NSA wants it—they'll get it. Moving data around isn't the solution. The
solution is creating international standards for securing private data, argued
Snowden.
What of Edward himself? What are the long-term
consequences for him? Will he stay in Russia for the rest of his life? The
interviewer asked what other countries he had applied to for asylum. The list
was long, but superfluous to reiterate here for no one had yet granted it to
him. Snowden hoped that as time went on the US government would see that the
information he had given journalists—not foreign governments—was not harmful to
the national interest, and therefore he would be allowed to return home.
Currently, Snowden is charged with breaking the
Espionage Act of 1917.[9]
However, he was quick to point out that this law was intended to prosecute
those who willing gave information over to foreign governments with the intent to undermine their own countries' national security.
There was never a caveat for those would give information over to journalists for the public good.
The government apparatus wants him to "face the music”, but Snowden
asserts that the music would simply be a show trial for the crimes he is
charged with do not guarantee a jury trial, especially considering the
government’s vilification campaign. His chances at a fair trial are negligible,
if not impossible, given the political ramifications of the outcome.
The New York Times recently published an
editorial exhorting the White House to end the vilification of Mr. Snowden and
grant him clemency so he can come home.[10]
"What is lawful is distinct from what is right-ful", Snowden claims.
I think his actions speak louder than his words. His revelations have caused no
harm except to expedite the shame of the policies of administrations past and
present that have baselessly eroding civil liberties. That is what is heating
the embers of this fire, not the actual breaking of a law. I have mentioned a
few times that more than any other statement in this interview Snowden pointed
out that he did what he did for the public good. Why does the NSA do
what they do? For the corporate good. Now ask yourself who really deserves to
be put on trial here? Given the character and intent of Mr. Snowden’s actions I
stand with the New York Times: he should be granted clemency and the NSA spying
apparatus should be overhauled.
History will judge the patriots from the terrorists. I for one stand
with Mr. Snowden.
[1] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f93_1390833151#iosbQXBaBOis0w1G.99
[2] http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-army-special-forces
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/27/darrell-issa-james-clapper-lied-to-congress-about-nsa-and-should-be-fired/
[6] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
[7] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/remarks-president-review-signals-intelligence
[8] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/report-on-nsa-surveillance-tactics.html?_r=0
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whistle-blower.html
No comments:
Post a Comment