Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
notdrunk
One point is to make taxpayers aware of how 52.6 billion of their dollars is being spent and to allow them to measure the benefits against the cost.
I do not doubt that surveillance (including surveillance carried out by the NSA) has been invaluable for avoiding terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Nor do I doubt that broad disclosure of all the information with which Snowden absconded would endanger lives and embarrass more than a few allies as well as interfere with delicate diplomatic negotiations.
On the other hand, we are the government. We take a share of the credit when it behaves morally and we take a share of the blame when it doesn’t. In a government of, by and for the people, the people share in the responsibility of government actions. If we don’t know what those actions are, then we as citizens are acting irresponsibly.
Clearly it is not the legitimate business of the press to regularly steal classified information and allow journalists and editors to make the decision as to what information should be “declassified” and published and what information should remain secret. That is a mission for diplomatic and military professionals. What we require is strict adherence to a system of Congressional and Executive oversight. We require an oversight committee of bright, informed, honest individuals upon whom we can comfortably rely. Anyone in either House fit that description?
When we lack such oversight, whistleblowers are the only fallback. Snowden is neither a villian nor a hero. He was a man facing a dlilemma. Still is. It just this woman’s opinion that the U.S. would fair better if we extend Snowden and Greenwald assurances that they will not be prosecuted or detained and work with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martin48
While Snowden’s generated headlines around the world and had a huge diplomatic fall-out, there has been little in the way of reaction from the authorities in Britain.
"Snowden, the most significant whistleblower of modern times, briefly amused London when he turned scarlet pimpernel in the summer," writes Simon Jenkins in The Guardian (which carries the leaks and is a liberal paper) "But the British establishment cannot get excited. It hates whistleblowers, regarding them as not proper chaps."
Even the storm over the arrest of David Miranda, the partner of the journalist who broke the story, at Heathrow airport blew over after a few days.
And while American lawmakers were shocked to discover that the state was looking at its citizens' phone records and other data, there appears to have been little concern in UK Government. "Nothing better illustrates the gulf that sometimes opens between British and American concepts of democracy," Jenkins says.
Indeed Jenkins compares our government's reaction to that of the USSR. "While Washington has been tearing itself apart, dismissive remarks by William Hague in the Commons and Lady Warsi in the Lords could have passed muster in Andropov's supreme soviet."
All we are told “National Security” is at stake, our guys (GCHQ) never do anything wrong (we know ‘cos they said so.), and that’s about it.
Love the Scarlet Pimpernel reference. Personally, I'm not at all upset that the NSA collects metadata. As long as the length and width of my erection remain the exclusive concern of those of my lovers within high levels of the diplomatic corps. :)
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Love the Scarlet Pimpernel reference. Personally, I'm not at all upset that the NSA collects metadata. As long as the length and width of my erection remain the exclusive concern of those of my lovers within high levels of the diplomatic corps. :)
That would certainly endanger national security.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
One point is to make taxpayers aware of how 52.6 billion of their dollars is being spent and to allow them to measure the benefits against the cost.
I do not doubt that surveillance (including surveillance carried out by the NSA) has been invaluable for avoiding terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Nor do I doubt that broad disclosure of all the information with which Snowden absconded would endanger lives and embarrass more than a few allies as well as interfere with delicate diplomatic negotiations.
On the other hand, we are the government. We take a share of the credit when it behaves morally and we take a share of the blame when it doesn’t. In a government of, by and for the people, the people share in the responsibility of government actions. If we don’t know what those actions are, then we as citizens are acting irresponsibly.
Clearly it is not the legitimate business of the press to regularly steal classified information and allow journalists and editors to make the decision as to what information should be “declassified” and published and what information should remain secret. That is a mission for diplomatic and military professionals. What we require is strict adherence to a system of Congressional and Executive oversight. We require an oversight committee of bright, informed, honest individuals upon whom we can comfortably rely. Anyone in either House fit that description?
When we lack such oversight, whistleblowers are the only fallback. Snowden is neither a villian nor a hero. He was a man facing a dlilemma. Still is. It just this woman’s opinion that the U.S. would fair better if we extend Snowden and Greenwald assurances that they will not be prosecuted or detained and work with them.
No, the public doesn't need to know about the black budget. You do know that the public means the World? Anyway, we elect people to Congress for dealing with national budget issues. The problem is that some people (including yourself?) are claiming that Snowden is a whistleblower. However, he doesn't fit the bill of a whistleblower. He supposedly stole over a million classified files. He has given some of those documents to the press. The press wouldn't fully disclose what is contained in some of those documents because of the national security implications. A number of the documents released don't show criminal actions by the government but they show legitimate functions of the government; however, those functions need to say hidden from public consumption because targets of those functions will change their habits.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Quote:
No, the public doesn't need to know about the black budget.
Yes, the public at the very least needs to know of the existence of the black budget and a rough description of its goals and activities; the details being left to the oversight of the legislative and executive branches. But we are now in a position where the public (for good reasons or ill) questions the quality of that oversight.
Quote:
You do know that the public means the World?
Of course. I'm not suggesting we render our entire surveillance program transparent to the world. Curiously, neither are Greenwald nor Snowden; as you write yourself, they have refrained from publishing material that would endanger national security. What is bad about this situation is that journalists are making the decision about what is and what is not to be classified in the interest of national security. The best way to remedy the situation is to offer them immunity and take these two back under our wing.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
A few points in response to the previous posts from Martin, Trish and Notdrunk:
1) Snowden (like Bradley Manning) was one of several hundred thousand people with access to classified information. There is clearly a mis-match between the availability of sensitive intelligence and the number people allowed access to it. I suspect that this is as much an administrative 'black hole' as much as it is part of the excess of information swilling about in this 'information age' just waiting to be trawled.
2) Snowden, again like Manning, violated a relationship of trust that he had with his employers. As a legal issue it is indefensible, Snowden signed a contract, if he didn't want to work for the government he should not have signed. As a moral issue I can accept whistleblowers in context. For example, someone hired by the police service does not expect to protect criminals because they are sharing the proceeds of drug deals with policemen; they should blow the whistle on it, though it might result in them being forced to wear concrete socks. I find it naive beyond belief that anyone would work for the US Government and be shocked at some of the things government gets away with that the public doesn't know about.
I wonder if the US public would be shocked to know what the hospitality budget is for their local Mayor, Sherriff, the Senator and so on. I once worked for a company that had a £100,000 budget for a Christmas party in company HQ to which (as usual) only the great and the good (and their secretaries) were invited. Is this scandalous? Should the shareholders know? Would they even care unless it impacted on their share value and dividends?
3) the primary anxiety with Snowden is that he has acquired sensitive data on individual members of the intelligence community, indeed most of his package has remained locked up as the editor of the Guardian has admitted it is too sensitive to be published.
4) Not all Metadata is stolen information, it is 'out there' in some cases such as the general record that most universities keep of internet traffic. As far as I am aware, the computing services departments of universities collect data on internet use and ought to be able to narrow down to a precise terminal or user any 'unusual' behaviour as long as the student or member of staff has signed on to use the university ISP. Private companies monitor internet traffic, usually as part of cyber-security in relation to intellectual property theft/industrial espionage. Again, the company that I used to work for blocked access to certain websites, and the awareness by most staff that accessing, for example, porn would show up in security was a healthy incentive to prevent this happening at work. Same, incidentally, with gambling web sites. I believe metadata on phone use is routinely trashed after a certain time but I don't know much about this.
5) World leaders eavesdrop on each others phone calls -I don't think anyone is surprised in fact I think most people expect spying of this basic nature to take place. In the old days the communists had their eyes in the office just as the Americans had spies in high places in Moscow, and the British during the Second World War (according a German historian I used to know) received raw intelligence on Adolf and his campaigns from the Chief of Staff of the German military (Halder, who had conspired against AH for years and was sacked in January 1945).
6. Defending the right to access private emails and telephone calls for matters of national security is both right and wrong. It is right because plots to plant bombs on public transport, in discos and supermarkets are real, and are probably happening right now. The Telegraph has reported that British 'Muslims' on their Syrian adventure are being trained to attack targets when they get back. Whether or not serious cells of 'guerillas' be they Islamic, Irish Republican etc, still use the systems that are being monitored I don't know, bin Laden stopped using them for years and was only tracked down through human intelligence -'eyes on the ground'. In the UK we need more exacting accountability to Parliament of our intelligence services but the fact is that until a decade or so ago the existence of MI5 and MI6 was denied and the identity of their heads was a 'national secret' when the head of the CIA was known by the whole world. I once shared a table with the head of MI6 but we knew in advance not to mention anything political, even though he was a charming man who would have dealt with my faux-Bolshevik attitudes with aplomb. This 'private club' mentality has been the bane of the intelligence 'community' so that even the Parliamentary body that has responsibility for it is still untrustworthy whatever Malcolm Rifkind says.
Worse is the way in which governments cover up all sorts of iniquities by claiming the 'national security' defence, so I agree with Trish and disagree with Notdrunk on this because a lot of this is used to cover up blatant incompetence and excessive spending on non-essential items. Operation Tiberius in the UK uncovered extensive links between criminal gangs and the police in Britain, extending into the Courts with bribes being paid to clerks, the nobbling of Juries and the corruption of officials in the Inland Revenue, to set alongside the Murdoch Empire's cash for intelligence also corrupting the police and other public bodies. In one celebrated case -the murder of Daniel Morgan- a private investigator and former criminal 'allegedly' murdered his business partner and then bribed the police to cover it up; in fact most private investigators in the UK are either ex-coppers or ex-criminals, the ex being flexible in both cases.
But this is crucial: Trish's comment 'We are the government'. I can't imagine anyone in the UK taking ownership of Parliament in this sense of the phrase -just as I dread to think what people would answer in response to the question 'Who does this country belong to?'. But then democracy has always had more vitality in the US than it has in the UK.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
It appears that some of the activities Snowden complained about probably violated the 4th amendment. But though I could be wrong about this, I don't think it was settled law at the time. The Constitution is not one of those documents that you can easily read and from it determine which actions violate its norms.
I don't think individuals should be able to individually determine whether actions they are obligated to maintain secrecy about violate our Constitution. If it is something clear-cut, or about which there are already standards because similar issues have been litigated, I would be more sympathetic towards his actions.
The examples Stavros gave about police officers are good examples of typical whistleblower activities. Someone revealing that a police department is riddled with corruption and subverting its own mission would be a hero in my view. Just as someone who showed that the U.S government was violating clearly established norms, and causing significant harm to its citizens would also be engaging in an act of heroism. This was policy decision (though maybe the wrong one) where significant discretion is used to determine the balance between security and privacy.
Sorry if I sound a bit "right wing" on this one, but I am just a bit skeptical that government employees should reform our national security processes by releasing data. Someone offering a good rebuttal is liable to convince me though because I don't know a great deal about what Snowden has done or why he did it.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
A comparable action could be Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers because they showed that the US government lied to the American public and also Congress by concealing the true extent of military activities in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Here was an issue where American service personnel were in the field but the full extent of their mission, its cost, and consequences was covered up. Ellsberg knew much of what was in the papers (a key document being Robert MacNamara's historical study of US involvement in Vietnam) because he worked on some of them. He photocopied the papers which I assume is a form of theft. But Ellsberg didn't run off to Sweden or Venezuela -he stayed put, was arrested, put on trial, and acquitted. Finally the consequence -if not solely of the Pentagon Papers- was a reform of the US military and an improvement in Congressional oversight of military affairs.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Yes, the public at the very least needs to know of the existence of the black budget and a rough description of its goals and activities; the details being left to the oversight of the legislative and executive branches. But we are now in a position where the public (for good reasons or ill) questions the quality of that oversight.
Of course. I'm not suggesting we render our entire surveillance program transparent to the world. Curiously, neither are Greenwald nor Snowden; as you write yourself, they have refrained from publishing material that would endanger national security. What is bad about this situation is that journalists are making the decision about what is and what is not to be classified in the interest of national security. The best way to remedy the situation is to offer them immunity and take these two back under our wing.
The media has already stated in some of their articles that they wouldn't publish some documents given to them by Snowden and company. In the black budget, the Washington Post added the following:
Quote:
The summary describes cutting-edge technologies, agent recruiting and ongoing operations. The Post is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods. Sensitive details are so pervasive in the documents that The Post is publishing only summary tables and charts online.
In the targeted killing article, the Washington Post added the following:
Quote:
The Post is withholding many details about those missions, at the request of U.S. intelligence officials who cited potential damage to ongoing operations and national security.
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
I think Stavros makes a good point in the second paragraph. I don't know anything about the specific protections whistleblowers get but if we were to devise a test for when a such a person should be protected, one element of that test might ask what his/her reasonable expectations are.
Is it within the reasonable expectations of someone working in intelligence that they would come across government surveillance that invades personal privacy? I would say yes. Would it for instance, be within the reasonable expectations of someone working for the government that the government is poisoning our water or having people watch us while we shower? Obviously not.
It can't simply be a subjective standard, where someone has protection as a whistleblower because they have a good faith belief that there is something improper taking place. And it cannot be purely objective either; for they could be right, but act recklessly because they did not have enough information to form that conclusion at the time they acted.
Someone should only be able to claim whistleblower status if the actions they oppose are clearly improper and well beyond what they would contemplate is part of the ordinary course of business. It cannot be in response to a policy decision that must take into account many sets of competing values and requires significant discretion to apply.
I also agree with the statement below. The government will claim any privilege they can to avoid scrutiny, and often without any regard to why that specific privilege was created.
"Worse is the way in which governments cover up all sorts of iniquities by claiming the 'national security' defence, so I agree with Trish and disagree with Notdrunk on this because a lot of this is used to cover up blatant incompetence and excessive spending on non-essential items"
Re: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations...
Edward Snowden is standing in the election to become Rector of Glasgow University...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-25830364
