
Why the Story on Snowden and the NSA Doesn't Add Up - Libertatea
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/nyt-snowden-was-hacker-nsa
======
jgrahamc
_This whole affair gives me an odd vibe. For reasons I can 't figure out, I
feel like everyone is holding back information. Obviously the government is,
but it sure seems as if the journalists reporting this story have also
declined to tell us everything they know. Maybe there's good reason for this.
But I wish I knew what it was._

Perhaps it's that the information is in the hands of a 'left wing' newspaper
which has a specific agenda/editorial slant and is using the information for
those purposes. It makes sense for The Guardian/Glenn Greenwald to put out
just enough information to cause a ruckus while keeping everything else to
themselves.

~~~
eightyone
You obviously aren't familiar with Glenn Greenwald. He's been extremely
critical of the Obama administration on a variety of issues. What your
claiming makes zero sense. There is a reason why Edward Snowden sought out
Greenwald.

~~~
jgrahamc
That's true. Could you elaborate?

PS I think you are reading something I didn't write.

I'm claiming that it makes sense for The Guardian/Greenwald to hold back
because they can drip feed information that creates a long running 'scandal'.
That has two effects: it keeps The Guardian itself in the news and it prolongs
the story.

Perhaps you think that I am equating Obama as a "Democrat" and The Guardian's
notion of "Left Wing" as the same thing. I am not.

For example, The Daily Telegraph did a similar thing with revelations about
MP's expenses in the UK. They had all the information but over a period of
days let out different bits of information. This is the sort of thing
newspapers will do, and, for The Guardian, Snowden's leaks are a massive
story. They'll milk it as much as they can.

~~~
TheAnimus
The problem for me isn't the left or right wing nature of the Guardian, just
that they, like many papers, don't have a good history when it comes to
accuracy and morality.

In the UK there was a scandal when a low end tabloid 'hacked' in to the voice
mail of a raped + murdered school girl. They were looking for some story no
doubt hoping to hear that she had gone to meet someone.

This was a scandal that ultimately would lead to the closing of the tabloid.
It was a shame though, because the Guardian made a claim too many, they
asserted that the tabloid journos deleted voice mail messages, as the mailbox
was full, and they wanted to hear more gossip. According to them at the time
this lead to the family being given false hope about their daughter been
alive.

Now, when you consider the questionable value that this untruth added to the
story (it is frankly immoral and shocking enough that the tabloid hacked the
phone) and ask how was it acquired? Why was no standards of integrity
followed, but mostly, why did they not think of the effect it would have on
the friends and family of the murdered school girl. I mean come on, is it
helping things to print such speculation?

Anyway, the retraction:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/dec/20/correction...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-
and-clarifications)

This is the most shocking example I can think of, and why I always take that
news outlet with a grain of salt, expecting them to be full of hypocrisy (See
auto trader sale and tax campaigning).

~~~
andyjohnson0
I consider that the Guardian performed a great public service in relation to
the phone hacking investigation. Without it, the illegal activity at NI and
associated corruption in the police and prison service would not have been
revealed. Multiple people are in prison right now because of this. The _prime
minister 's_ former press secretary and the former ceo of nI in the UK are
about to stand trial. This is a big deal and good journalism.

The Guardian retracted the claim about NI deleting the messages because it
could not be _proved_ , not because it was shown to be false. The police's
opinion as given in the Leveson Inquiry report was that "It is not possible to
state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted,"
[1][2]. The Guardian team originally believed, based on police sources, that
messages had been deleted. When it couldn't be proved they retracted the
claim. How is this not "moral"? Did it really shock you so much?

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-
deleti...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-deletion-
messages)

[2] [http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/...](http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf)

~~~
TheAnimus
>that "It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's
voicemails were or were not deleted," [1][2].

Did you read the linked document?

"These events support the suggestion that the voicemail box was full with the
10 messages that could be left, and that on 24th March, some 72 hrs after
Millys last sighting, messages could be left again. Mrs Dowler’s call is
likely to have been made when one of the previous messages from 21st March had
been automatically deleted."

So they probably didn't delete it. People here (including the guy below) have
gone to a frankly worrying guilty until innocent mode. If I write something
about your firm, I have to be able to prove it, not you disprove it.

Which is my point, they had a scoop, by questionable means they had found out
that NoTW had been doing very immoral things. Why not leave it at that, why
did they have to crank it up a sensationalist gear?

Oh of course, because when The Guardian does it, it is for the greater good!
[1] When anyone else does it, its 'titter tattle'.

This is why I treat the Guardian with a pinch of salt, its not like Sun or
Mirror or News of the Screws, they sometimes get some good stuff correct
before other sources. It's just often they are very hypocritical, and not
quite 100% with the truth. This bugs the crap out of me. Most newspapers are
like this. This is why I hate most newspapers. Hell if anyone can recommend
something more frequent than the economist I'd be interested!

But on this context of phone hacking, it is funny that their defence is
similar to an NSA one isn't it? Intercepting private communications is bad,
but when we do it, we have only good motives.

[1] - [http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/04/guardian-journalist-phone-
hack...](http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/04/guardian-journalist-phone-hacking-gave-
me-a-thrill-103560/)

~~~
jessaustin
Admit it dude. You worked at NotW.

------
Zirro
"Profiles describe him as secretive, fascinated with computers, and with
knowledge of things like Tor (a peer-to-peer network for maintaining anonymity
for computer communications)."

Doesn't that describe most of us on HN? ;-)

~~~
hnha
and that's a great example why data retention is bad.

------
swombat
Money quotes:

 _an infrastructure analyst at the N.S.A., like a burglar casing an apartment
building, looks for new ways to break into Internet and telephone traffic
around the world._

 _Infrastructure analysts like Mr. Snowden, in other words, are not just
looking for electronic back doors into Chinese computers or Iranian mobile
networks to steal secrets. They have a new double purpose: building a target
list in case American leaders in a future conflict want to wipe out the
computers’ hard drives or shut down the phone system._

So basically he was a professional hacker. That takes a fair bit of
intelligence, knowledge and experience, and is a fair bit beyond the job of a
sysadmin, which is what everyone was assuming based on the title.

I guess it made sense. Unless you're Dr Evil, you probably won't call your
hired mobsters "assassins" either, instead you might call them something
neutral like "Situation Specialists"...

~~~
walshemj
No if you where a TLA why would you use job titles that gave anything away
about what the persons job was.

And how does one go from "Infrastructure Analyst" to being a government hacker
looking at job postings for Infrastructure Analysts seems to indicate that it
is a posh word for systems administrator.

~~~
mncolinlee
No one hires hackers using normal job postings and titles. They show up at
DefCon and Black Hat Briefings and then schmooze in t-shirts and blue jeans.

Like this:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0ejKersnM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0ejKersnM)

------
mtgx
It was the right "strategy". If they would've released everything in one day,
we'd probably already be on to the next thing by now, and the whole scandal
would've lasted a week. They've done you a _favor_ doing it like this.

~~~
brown9-2
Is it the responsibility of a newspaper to create a long-running scandal, or
to report on the news/truth?

I'm confused by people that say the motives of someone like Snowden or an
institution like The Guardian are irrelevant yet then laud The Guardian for
having a clear motive.

------
JunkDNA
I have to admit I've been increasingly concerned that something about this is
not adding up as well. I can't precisely put my finger on it. The link to
wikileaks gives me pause and the more recent stuff about foreign spying which,
while politically incorrect, is kind of the NSA's primary sigint job. The most
recent PRISM slide release also seems to suggest a narrower and more targeted
US role than was let on initially.

~~~
mr_spothawk
I speculate that the reason his Ecuador papers were revoked has more to do
with Ecuador's dirty laundry than Snowden's. It's my view that this is the
largest existential threat to the US Security Apparatus (e.g. Booz, et al. )
that has ever existed. Under that level, I could imagine they are pulling out
all their stops.

------
DanBC
> _What was Edward Snowden 's job when he worked for Booz Hamilton as a
> contractor to the NSA?_

We don't know. That's the nature of jobs with security clearances doing work
for Secret Government Spy Agencies.

> _The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I 'd certainly like to know
> more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security?
> Was he a threat analyst of some kind? Did he actively search out
> vulnerabilities in other networks that NSA could exploit? Did he do this
> only at Booz Hamilton, or did he have basically the same job previously when
> he worked directly for the NSA? Exactly how much does he know about the NSA
> programs he's been revealing to the world?_

There are two issues here.

1) How can we organize effective oversight of secret spy agencies?

2) How can we trust whistleblowers? How knowledgeable are those
whistleblowers?

For 1) we have to create strong law. We then give a small independant group
oversight powers. We then have to trust the spies, and the people overseeing
them, to obey the law. We have to be careful about crafting the laws, because
these people want to push the boundaries of what they can do.

For 2) I guess we just have to accept that people tend not to whistleblow
unless they feel strongly about something. He's been called a traitor for
revealing this much. Imagine what happens if he reveals even more.

> _Or, at the very least, I 'd like to know why I can't know._

There are several guesses we can make here. i: The slides reveal information
that put people's lives at risk. ii: The slides reveal information that give
too much information to the enemy; or cut off information to the US. iii: The
slides are not particularly relevant to the prism story. iv: The slides
contradict the prism story, and giving the whole context ruins the story, and
the journalists are sensationalising scumbags. v:etc.

------
grey-area
_The fuzziness surrounding this is frustrating. I 'd certainly like to know
more about what Snowden did for the NSA. Did he work on network security? Was
he a threat analyst of some kind?_

Frankly, I don't think any of these questions matter, and the speculation
without evidence is not useful. We should be discussing the leaks, not
Snowden's motivation in leaking, his background, his girlfriend, how much he
understands of what he leaked etc. The motivation of a source in journalism is
not really important, what is important is discovering the truth about what is
happening in the world and our true relations with our government.

 _What 's more, Snowden apparently thought the entire set of slides should be
revealed to the world. I'd like to know what changed his mind._

Snowden gave the documents to journalists so that they could fact-check, start
asking questions, and release what they thought was appropriate. According to
Greenwald he specifically mentioned that he didn't want to dump all this data,
and I can see good reasons why he wouldn't want to - there are probably things
in the documents that would be very damaging (and not just to reputations) if
released, some documents have been redacted before release, and they require
explanation and context - none of that comes with a simple dump of the
documents.

There are also sound tactical reasons for allowing the administration to
tangle itself in its own lies, and to prevent the story simply being buried so
I completely understand why they do this. Of course the newspapers and
journalists involved have their own opinions, but trying to reduce those
opinions to left wing or libertarian or whatever other labels you care to
apply does nothing to elucidate how they have affected the presentation of the
information. On the contrary, it just allows people to dismiss the information
without bothering to address its implications. Greenwald for example has been
labelled extreme left-wing, libertarian, extreme right-wing and everything in
between, but I think he's really interested in privacy and surveillance, not
joining the left-wing or right-wing club and hating the other side. The
Guardian has not pursued an agenda here that I can discern aside from trying
to sell more newspapers or get more hits - they've printed stories from all
over the political spectrum, and _they are not the only newspaper releasing
stories_ \- the most important recent leak of 4 slides was from the Washington
Post, which is also in possession of this material, papers in Hong Kong and
Germany have also been given some information. Snowden was also interviewed in
Hong Kong by veteran diplomatic reporter Ewan MacAskill[1] who seemed
impressed with his credentials and honesty so he's not completely opaque. I'd
recommend any who haven't to watch this interview with the Guardian editors
explaining the process in a bit more detail[2].

I find the disturbing allegations of unregulated, widespread, and deep
surveillance used for economic and political ends _far more important_ than
Snowden's role in all of this, and I think he'd agree with that. While it's
tempting to get obsessed with Snowden, his character, his job, why he leaked
etc, and create grand conspiracy theories surrounding it, it's more healthy to
discuss the facts we do know and their implications for how we use the
internet. More information will come to light in time, and the information we
do know raises serious questions about just how far state surveillance should
be allowed to go.

[1]
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill](http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdz...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7pdzzZB7Xgo)

~~~
alan_cx
You kinda sounds like you agree with Snowden's message, appreciate his risk,
but then want him just left to hang out to dry? Surely this bloke deserves
protection? If he is forgotten while people deal with the allegations, he'll
rot.

I do agree that the issues are important, but the life of one human being,
especially the one who made the debate possible, has to be as important. If
publishing personal stuff protects, and at the moment it seems that keeping
him in in the public eye is probably helping keep him alive, then so be it.

Also, freedom is partly about how we treat individuals in the extreme. The US
reaction to this says a lot.

~~~
jaggederest
In the world as it exists today, whistleblowers against the US virtually
forfeit their lives. He's a dead man walking, and by talking about _him_
instead of the larger issues you give leverage to ignore the larger issues.

This is always the way it works - ad hominem, discredit the person,
imprison/kill him as an example, roll cute summary stories in the press about
what a deranged maniac he was, and the populace forgets all about the larger
issues once the human interest drama is wrapped up.

So please, accept that he's thoroughly and truly fucked, and try to make the
incredible orwellian surveillance state they've built the focus.

~~~
disputin
"He's a dead man walking" \- surely Obama and friends couldn't deal with the
outrage that would follow? Their image is already shot. The death of Snowden
would put them on par with mafia.

~~~
randallsquared
> surely Obama and friends couldn't deal with the outrage that would follow?
> Their image is already shot.

I can't figure out how this would actually matter to Obama, more than a few
speeches' worth. Except for a few thousand libertarians, the people most upset
by this were Obama's most fervent supporters, who won't be voting for him
again anyway. The administration's main political foes seem to recognize that
there's a big issue here (after all, slightly more than half of their
constituents think that the NSA actions are "hurting Americans"[1]), but don't
quite know how to capitalize on it, since they were all in favor of things
like this before the story broke. The outrage within the US about this is
spread so evenly across the usual parties that it's not clear that there will
be any actual fallout for future elections.

> The death of Snowden would put them on par with mafia.

I would suppose that if they choose to kill him, they'll try pretty hard to do
it in a way where it's not provable that the US killed him. Future-leaks-wise,
though, it might seem beneficial for people to _suspect_ that the US killed
him, since presumably that would deter future leaks to some extent.

[1] [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/fox-news-poll-
mix...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/25/fox-news-poll-mixed-views-
on-nsa-surveillance-program/)

~~~
tod222
> Except for a few thousand libertarians, the people most upset by this were
> Obama's most fervent supporters…

No, Obama's most fervent supporters want to hang Snowden for treason, and
Greenwald along with him. They're quite happy to use the word "treason" for
both of them.

Ever since the leak supporters of Obama on blogs and Twitter have been
attacking Snowden and particularly Greenwald with ferocity. [1]

A derogatory term has recently been coined and is now being applied to anyone
on the left who supports Snowden and Greenwald. This term, "emoprog,"
basically translates to "whiny progressive." The complaint is that emoprogs,
instead of falling into line and unquestioningly supporting whatever Democrat
is president, whine disloyally about principles said president is violating or
not pursuing with enough vigor.

So no, Obama's most fervent supporters wish Snowden and the whole issue would
just go away and find infuriating the disloyalty shown by Greenwald and his
emoprog supporters.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/351829186991759360](https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/351829186991759360)
[https://twitter.com/Johngcole/status/349308095987593217](https://twitter.com/Johngcole/status/349308095987593217)
[https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/348879008747896833](https://twitter.com/JeffersonObama/status/348879008747896833)

~~~
dragonwriter
You're both right, its just one of you is talking about Obama's most fervent
supporters _prior_ to the Snowden case, and one is talking about Obama's most
fervent supporters _in relation to_ the Snowden case. These are mostly not the
same groups of people, and overlap only to the extent that both include the
practically policy-blind cult of personality than any major politician (or
celebrity more generally) will end up attracting, but this is a fairly small
slice of either group of "fervent supporters".

------
HarrietJones
The whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. I can understand that
governments may have shadowy departments doing illegal things we don't know
about, but the whole scope of Prism seems to be too wide. When people talk
about it, they describe computer systems I couldn't even begin to imagine, let
alone design.

Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for
the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible.

Add to this the emphasis by _all_ parties on Snowden and his shenanigans, and
I'm just left confused.

~~~
Amadou
> Somehow, the US government is spying on every piece of internet traffic for
> the grad sum of $20M a year. I just don't believe it's technically possible.

That's because it is not possible. The $20M/year number is just the tiniest
tip of the iceberg for one little program that seems to be more like the GUI
on top of the data from all the other programs. The NSA alone has a budget on
the order of $10B/year - the entire (american) "intelligence-industrial
complex" is estimated to be around $50B/year.

------
brown9-2
I do find it baffling that Greenwald hasn't written an article detailing his
relationship with Snowden, the timeline of when they began communicating and
when Snowden started at BAH, if they are in contact still, etc., at least to
dispel any questions people would raise about it.

I suspect Greenwald would say he hasn't done this because he thinks that
Snowden isn't important to "the story", yet he still happily tweets snarky
things about Snowden and what other journalists write/think:

[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351910567210004480](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351910567210004480)
[https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351453433989054464](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351453433989054464)

------
joshdance
Snowden is the red herring. It is more interesting for news cycles to talk
about a person. What he does, what he likes. It is hard to talk about "the
government". There is no one person to interview, we can't find out what food
"the government" likes etc. We should be focusing on the leaks and the systems
that allowed the surveillance to happen.

------
nodata
I find it very interesting that there is only one photo of Snowden, and that
nobody has seen him.

~~~
panacea
That photo is a still from a video interview he had with The Guardian.

~~~
nodata
But always _that_ photo. Never a different photo. Seems odd to me.

~~~
redthrowaway
It's simply become memetic. Why bother combing through the video for a
different still when you can use the same one everyone else is?

~~~
heyitsnick
I'm not sure if you're being ironic because you answer your own question. A
newspaper wants content that is different from its competitors. It takes
little effort to "comb through the video" to grab another screenshot. I also
find it odd that everyone is using the same still.

~~~
jessaustin
_A newspaper wants content that is different from its competitors._

Except in this case the Snowden image is not "content". It is an icon: visual
shorthand that catches the eye and identifies the topic. In a story about a
corporation, they would use that corporation's standard logo rather than a
unique picture of the generic corporate campus.

All of the pictures of Snowden's girlfriend in various poses and states of
undress? Now that's content.

