NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] NSA "Whistleblower" Snowden: Hero? Fool? Traitor? Or ... ?
NSA "Whistleblower" Snowden: Hero? Fool? Traitor? Or ... ?
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html
Oops. I'd thought there was a good probability I could get through
today without having to post again about the ever more confusing NSA
mess.
Not a chance, as it turns out.
This saga is now taking on the various aspects of a 60s-era spy spoof
film, and its bizarre twists and turns are making David Lynch's 1984
production of "Dune" look clear and easily comprehensible by
comparison.
Here's where we stand.
Word is out that the NSA leaker, "whistleblower," or whatever your
preferred terminology may be, is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former
CIA tech assistant who (until very recently) was a contract worker at
NSA on behalf of various outside firms, like Dell and Booz Allen.
Snowden is now reportedly holed up in a hotel room in Hong Kong, and
states that he hopes to achieve asylum in Iceland.
He asserts that he has done "nothing wrong."
There's already a video of him floating around, declaring how he
leaked NSA documents on principle because he was so concerned about
where NSA was heading and how it is violating the rights of Americans.
It's quite stirring.
As you probably already know by now, I am acutely displeased by the
situation associated with surveillance in this country, as noted
yesterday in "Internet Shattered: Spies, Spooks, and Disgust"
( http://j.mp/10ZrbMY [Lauren's Blog] ).
Snowden is already being hailed as a "hero" in many quarters, and
comparisons are being made to U.S. Army leaker (or whistleblower --
again, your choice) Bradley Manning (whose trial, coincidentally, has
just gotten underway).
The comparison may be apt, but not necessarily in a straightforward
manner. Both of these cases seem far from black and white, and
Snowden's situation brings with it some real head-scratching
questions.
I'm immediately struck by Snowden's current choice of Hong Kong as a
place of refuge. He says the choice was based on their "spirited
commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent." I'm
not entirely sure that he's talking about the same Hong Kong I know,
which is actually part of China, operates only with China's
sufferance, and -- we can logically assume -- is saturated with
Chinese Intelligence.
But hell, Snowden was doing work for NSA -- maybe he has special
knowledge that makes Hong Kong/China a good pick, even if it wouldn't
ordinarily be on most free speech advocates' short lists.
We're also told that Snowden is "lining the door of his hotel room
with pillows to prevent eavesdropping," and "puts a red hood over his
head and laptop to avoid cameras capturing his passwords."
I'll admit to being puzzled by such actions. Neither of them are
likely to negatively impact skilled eavesdroppers in any significant
way, given the tradecraft available today. Maybe this is just a cover
story (no pun intended) and he's actually using an array of high-tech
CIA/NSA gadgetry to protect himself. As James Bond knows, it seems
like "Q" is never around when you really need him.
But all of this is really only the kind of material that might make
for an intriguing movie trailer.
The core, most important aspects of this situation, relate to the
actual information that Snowden leaked (or "whistleblew"). And here
matters get murky in short order.
We at least seem to have enough information now to make some broad
characterizations.
As much as I abhor NSA obtaining telephone call metadata and the scope
of government FISA user data demands to Web services, it appears at
this time that most or all of this activity has not only unfortunately
been legal, but could reasonably be anticipated as logical outcomes of
the PATRIOT Act and other related legislative and court actions.
There was those of us who tried to point out these risks at every
opportunity. We were routinely shouted down, sometimes being told
that it was un-American even to bring up the issues.
Nothing really to be gained now by reminders that "We told you so."
But back to Snowden's data.
The (sadly, unsurprising) confirmation of the "Phone companies to NSA"
telephone call metadata connection is certainly useful, and indeed a
cause for broad condemnation, concern, and even anger about our
blossoming surveillance society, as I've noted in my postings over the
last few days.
And word about NSA's methodologies for organizing and indexing a broad
range of globally collected metadata ("Boundless Informant" -- gotta
love these names) is certainly intriguing, even though very much along
the lines of what we would have expected and frankly, unless one buys
into associated conspiracy theories, not particularly dramatic. More
confirmation that NSA is collecting a lot of data, but we already
basically knew that.
It's in the PRISM documents that I feel the situation becomes most
problematic, because I believe strongly that these have done real
damage to innocent parties and have played directly into insipid,
emotional, false conspiracy theories that have become a scourge,
especially in our toxic political environment.
The PRISM documents have been widely touted as "proving" that NSA has
"back doors" into the servers of Google, Facebook, and other firms,
through which NSA could query and extract personal user data without
interaction or control from these firms themselves. A truly
horrendous prospect -- if it were true.
The named firms quickly refuted the accusations. They insist that
there are no "back doors," that all data requests (e.g., via FISA
mechanisms) are individually vetted, then either approved, appealed,
or taken to court when the firms felt that the requests were overly
broad or otherwise inappropriate.
Of course you can never prove a negative. As I noted yesterday, the
conspiracy fans have now run wild, convinced that the firms are
outright lying, colluding, and worse.
I can't say the following strongly enough. To believe these
conspiracy theories is to assume that the individuals dealing with
these matters at these firms are ethically vacuous, have no backbone,
or are genuinely evil. This is all simply false.
I personally know a variety of persons at these firms who by any
rational analysis would have to know about such "back door" systems if
they existed, and who would be unwilling to suffer their presence.
The kinds of engineering that would be required to implement such
mechanisms would be extremely complex at the global scale of these
firms. I simply do not believe that they could be designed, deployed,
or maintained without so many persons finding out about them that
they'd be essentially open secrets internally.
And while the government can use an NSL (National Security Letter) to
prevent someone from revealing the existence of something -- for
example by forcing them to stand mute to a question -- you can't force
someone to outright lie in the manner that would be represented by
these firms' explicit denials.
What's more, I strongly believe that any attempt to push through such
systems would have resulted in levels of resignations immediately
obvious to outsiders.
The folks I know at these firms are among the most ethically
responsible that I've ever encountered. I do not accept that they
would quietly play along with the kinds of NSA schemes that some are
alleging. Period.
And even those allegations are foggy. It can be easily argued that it
was actually media misinterpretations and sensationalism that led to
the "back door" claims. Those same NSA documents could even more
reasonably be interpreted to be discussing exactly what these firms
have said was the case -- providing properly and legally vetted
responses to individual FISA and similar government user data
requests. No "back doors" -- no direct, uncontrolled access to user
data on servers.
At this stage, it's impossible to easily ameliorate the damage already
done by this set of hyperbolic, false allegations that will likely now
take on a life of its own.
Which brings us now to a fairly obvious query. Why were the PRISM
docs dumped on the media in the manner that they were, especially when
their seeming vagueness plays so neatly into conspiratorial mindsets?
I don't know the answer to that question.
Nor will I attempt here to answer the question posed as the topic of
this piece. I don't know what Edward Snowden really is. Perhaps he
is indeed a hero. Or a combination hero and fool. Or perhaps
something else. You'll have to make up your own mind, in the fullness
of time.
I do know one thing absolutely. I'll take the word of the people I
know at these firms, persons I like and believe -- over the word of
NSA and all the spooks, ex-spooks, and contract spooks on the planet.
We are dealing with a complex situation with fragmentary information
being dribbled to us by the media out of context. Eventually we'll
presumably have a more complete understanding of the various facets
involved.
The conspiracy theorists can whine, the haters can hate -- they can
all get their jollies as they will. But for me it's all about what's
logical, reasonable, and most of all about the individuals I trust and
care about.
Be seeing you.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad