
Decline of ‘60 Minutes’ Continues With This Week’s NSA Whitewash - pain_perdu
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177598/sad-decline-60-minutes-continues-weeks-nsa-whitewash
======
vinhboy
I am really glad people (or at least some) saw right through them.

I caught only like 10 minutes of it, but one of the NSA official was talking
about how they discovered a state sponsored malware that could infect your
BIOS and brick your computer. I was like, wait, what? So you spy on our phone
and internet communication so you can protect us from computer viruses?

But if you were to view that as a lay person, what the NSA official said about
cyber attacks must have sounded really damn scary. After hearing something
like that, most people would accept that the NSA's actions are justifiable.

~~~
tbrake
IMO we're past the point of the layperson being so technically hopeless they'd
swallow this whole. I grant the numbers are still out there, but I think the
people convinced/reassured/calmed by this kind of PR are that way because they
genuinely think it's worth it. Maybe even a "better the devil you know"
scenario?; it's worth "our guys" having their hands on all of this power, with
its potential for abuse, than the "other guys".

What I don't get is why, if you're the NSA, would you go through the PR effort
for people already on "your side"; you're not going to sway a large swath of
the population and there surely can't be that many fence sitters on this
issue.

~~~
yardie
A college friend of mine that works in DC defended the NSA in a FB comment by
saying, "we sort of knew all along they were doing this anyway." So, because
they haven't done anything bad that we know of they should continue the
course. This is a college educated, engineer grad defending NSA practices. I
feel the layperson knows this is wrong but feels mentally, outgunned by all
the smart people telling them they are right in doing this.

~~~
doktrin
> "we sort of knew all along they were doing this anyway."

In the wake of the original leaks, reading this particular snippet on FB
posted by otherwise intelligent friends was one of my ultimate pet peeves.

It neatly encapsulates both self-affirmation ("oh _I_ totally knew this was
going on, because I'm wicked smaht") and a shocking degree of complacency.

~~~
mindslight
.. Or just disgust at the complacency pre-Snowden and continuing adoption of
broken technologies stemming from lack of critical forethought. The
centralized data silos of web 2.0 were and are never not going to be used
against you.

------
forgotAgain
I think its good to remember that these people are professionals in
disinformation and psyops. If we don't understand what they are attempting
then it's more likely due to our lack of experience in the area rather then
their incompetence.

One plausible explanation is it is an effort to give cover to friendly
politicians during political campaigns. They can't just leave these people
without a story. They need to supply them with something to counter all the
negative news. The story doesn't have to be airtight. It just needs to be good
enough for the majority of the population to remain accepting of the status
quo.

As an example of another bit in this campaign I would point to the recent
instances of politicians claiming that Snowden must have had help from the
Chinese or Russians. No proof was given but he just had to have help because
how else could he have done it.

It would be good to remember that the first goal of any organization is
survival. There is no reason to think that the offensive capabilities of the
NSA and the rest of the defense establishment aren't being used to protect
themselves.

------
IanDrake
CBS is really pumping up the PR for the NSA.

Recent episodes of NCIS have a NSA agent on loan to the NCIS staff. She's
cute, smart, and quirky and does a great job protecting us all from the scary
people.

Also, Hawaii 5.0, had a hack attack on an episode lately and they were all
"Thank god we have the NSA to protect us". Ok, I forget the details on that
one, but I remember rolling my eyes.

Now with 60 minutes jumping on board, it's plain to see there's a coordinated
effort to spin the NSA in a good light. Not just a whitewash, the message is
"The NSA spying on Americans is a good thing".

~~~
smacktoward
This is true. I wonder how much of it is just CBS pandering to its demographic
rather than coordinated propaganda, though. The CBS audience skews old
([http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/from-cbs-
adv...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/from-cbs-advertisers-
get-the-older-viewers-they-want)), and _loves_ police procedurals, which as a
genre unfailingly cheerlead for institutional authorities. (Think how many
procedural plotlines turn on the Good Guy Cops lying to or physically
threatening someone they've got in an interrogation room, for instance. This
is always presented as the Good Guy Cops being smart and savvy, not as an
abuse of power.)

So if you've got an audience that wants to be told that the authorities are
always right, you could decide strictly for business reasons to just give them
more of that.

------
runjake
An easy bite for a real journalist would've been Alexander's statement in the
opening segment that NSA does not collect data ("phone calls and emails") on
Americans. He then goes on to detail all the safeguards (FISA courts, access
controls) to prevent analysts from mis-using this actually-collected
"uncollected" data.

A real journalist, which Miller isn't, would've been all over that. But if it
hadn't been Miller, and it had a real journalist, there would've been no way
NSA would've allowed CBS inside any part of the complex.

Later in the segment, it is mentioned we share all this data with our FIVE
EYES partner countries, where presumably, they don't have safeguards regarding
foreign nationals (eg. Americans). Another something a real journalist
would've jumped all over.

Another little aside: Miller asked Ledgett (the Snwoden task force head and
soon-to-be Deputy Director, NSA) how many times he's been interviewed by the
media and he replied "One. Now.". He's been interviewed at least a few times
before, most recently by the WSJ. A quick Google search pulled up this URL:
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230460710...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579214673029584730)

------
DigitalSea
I am one of the few who remember a time when 60 Minutes actually did
investigative journalism and not biased propaganda pieces for the likes of the
NSA. Now you'll be hard-pressed to find any investigation in a 60 Minutes
story, let alone the journalism part. Sad.

~~~
res0nat0r
What should they have done differently? I think the sentiment here mainly is
going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about
everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough.

~~~
wyclif
How about asking some hard questions instead of tossing softballs? For
instance, why wasn't Keith Alexander confronted by the fact that he lied to
Congress and the FISA courts? But no, that would have cut into their driveby
on Snowden. Did you know that Edward Snowden kicks puppies? &c.

I watched the interview and it was a real puff piece. Last week, 60 Minutes
doled out advertising to Amazon. This week, they did it for NSA.

~~~
res0nat0r
The lying to Congress issues aren't so black and white as I mentioned in
another thread. Here is a writeup about Clapper:

> There is an added wrinkle here, however, is that it is not clear to me
> whether Clapper could have given a direct (and truthful) answer in a public
> hearing, as such an answer would have required him to disclose the existence
> of a then-classified government program. Even a non-answer or evasion could
> have revealed the existence of operations the NSA was trying to keep secret.

[http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-
co...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-congress/)

~~~
lemming
He could have said "I can't comment on that in a public forum".

~~~
growupkids
I think that might where the miscommunication comes in with lay people.
Commenting at all would confirm the existence of a classified program. That's
the rule everyone is taught when you get read in. You're taught to never
divulge. So whereas a case could be made that this program was illegal, the
fact that it's classified means it's next to impossible to comment at all
about it in a public forum. So, you lie

As far as lying to congress, I seem to recall that both parties leaders
trotted out to say that all was well, and that this is done to keep us all
safe. It's hard to claim anyone was lied to when it seems the intelligence
committees and leaders in both houses knew full well what was going on. Does
anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? It's
just seems like political convenience for congress to continue that meme, when
the intelligence committees seem to have know exactly what was going on. Maybe
I'm just jaded, but I suspect the politicians knew and are more than happy to
throw anyone else under the bus. Otherwise, if they'd didn't know, then why
haven't they done anything?

~~~
betterunix
"It's hard to claim anyone was lied to"

His statements are on the Congressional Record. That means he lied to
_everyone in the world_ , since the record is public.

------
rl3
Unsurprisingly, the words "targeting" and "collecting" were used
interchangeably when convenient.

In similar fashion, "metadata" was again used as a red herring.

All domestic communications within the United States are currently intercepted
and stored for at least 5 years, including content. Perhaps that wasn't a
desirable talking point.

------
kpapke
EDIT Did anybody find that segment about the codebreakers and the Rubik's cube
kind of silly? It seemed to send a message to me like, "These guys can solve a
damn Rubik's cube okay. Their work is way over your head. Don't ask questions,
just trust them."

~~~
joelrunyon
Agreed.

The 1:30 solve for a rubix cube is a bunk time too. I think I got mine down to
45 seconds which I referred to as "faster than anyone who can't solve a rubix
cube" since it sounds impressive, but most guys who are amazing at it can do
it in less than 15.

------
transfire
"The fact is, we're not collecting everybody's email, we're not collecting
everybody's phone things, we're not listening to that."

Uh...
[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/)

How easy it has become for them to lie.

~~~
computer
The word "collecting" means something different in NSA vocabulary than it does
in our vocabulary: to them, it is defined as "specifically looking at".
Gather/store and collect are completely different things, to them...

It allows for them to make such statements to people who don't know their
definition, and later claim they did not lie.

~~~
cryoshon
I really don't understand why they're allowed to redefine terms like this.

Shouldn't the media be calling them out?

~~~
aclevernickname
Yes. they should. now think real hard about why that might not be happening
here.

------
gjenkin
FRONTLINE seems to be the only investigative journalism program of note left
on television. Will be interesting to see their report on the NSA, assuming
that they're working on one.

~~~
vinhboy
They already did. Even before this whole Snowden business.

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/)

~~~
stevenrace
Additionally, the 'Spying on the Homefront' [1] episode in 2007 brought up
FISA, domestic wiretaps, AT&T's 'Room 641A' [2], etc.

[1]
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/)

[2]
[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html)

------
grogenaut
Once Rooney died they were all free to stop complaining which does not make
for good news. That grumpy old man was protecting our freedoms by protecting
our lawn.

------
atmosx
I saw the show here[1]. It's beyond ridiculous. The saddest thing is how
stupid they consider average Joe to be.

[1] [http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-
good-...](http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-snowden-
bad/356174/)

Another question that always puzzles me... Are operating system _THAT_
vulnerable? Every Agency, Criminal, whatever-organization has a remote 0day
windows/linux/macosx exploit????

~~~
troels
Some more than others. But I'm pretty sure that the average consumer os is
vulnerable to someone with the skills. Even if the os itself isn't, there will
typically be hundreds of unaudited programs running under escalated
privileges. Any one of those would suffice.

~~~
noinsight
I think that the situation is hopeless for joe users, if someone wants to own
their computer they will. I wouldn't really even trust many IT admins to not
get owned if someone actually targets them (instead of the normal random stuff
everyone gets). Even if you know what you're doing, in the worst case you just
need to browse to the wrong URL to get instantly owned without user
interaction. I think it's hopeless for systems that are used in standard
"desktop" manner, the attack surface is so large.

See for example this: [http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-
fatale...](http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-fatale-dupes-
it-guys-at-us-government-agency/)

~~~
ds9
"Even if you know what you're doing, in the worst case you just need to browse
to the wrong URL to get instantly owned without user interaction"

You'll have to make a better case. In the exploit in your link, the user was
tricked by social engineering, had his computer configured to automatically
run Java applets from arbitrary sources, and in all probability was running
Microsoft Windows - hardly someone practicing good security.

------
paul9290
60 Minutes pawned by Jeff Bezos and now a paid stooge for the NSA who tried to
further discredit Snowden.

------
mrobot
Sigh, more about phone records.

Phone records! Just metadata collection! Data collection? Oh, right, we do
that, too.

~~~
dmazin
Shit, somewhere in there is a point.

~~~
mrobot
My point was that phone records is often used as a distraction from the rest
of the programs, "see look, it's just the outside of a letter!".

In reality, two things are wrong: a lot of letters' insides are analyzed as
well, and keeping a central database of just the outsides turns out to be a
huge privacy violation, anyway.

------
doki_pen
And the first example they use is a "pirate"??!! That justifies a lack of
privacy and an ungodly sum of tax money?!

:throws up in mouth:

~~~
KMag
Those Somali warlords tap undersea fiber optic cables, intercepting file
transfers. Right now, there at least three different safe houses in the
outskirts of Mogadishu with several terabyte hard drives rigged to blow up if
their demands aren't met. Billions of dollars worth of the world's music is
blown up every year by these monsters. Music piracy is a major threat to the
US recording industry, and a legitimate target of the NSA.

------
cafard
The notion that 60 Minutes had a position from which to decline is curious.

------
siculars
NSA and there mass media partners are basically running psyops on Americans.
The sad thing is that it will probably work on many of the sheeple and provide
ample cover for morning talk shows and op-ed articles ad nauseam.

------
rdl
Are they this bad in their other current reporting?

~~~
Shivetya
their love affair with the current administration has basically neutered them.

~~~
danielweber
So was it a hate affair with Bush that led them to unquestioningly believe
something they wanted so hard to be true with the memos?

------
josefresco
Since when did anyone still consider 60 minutes serious journalism? They've
long gone the way of "gee-whiz" reporting for the aging (and probably
sleeping) baby-boomers. You want hard hitting journalism covering the worse
situations around the world? Frontline has you covered.

~~~
VLM
Watch the commercials. They're aimed older than the boomers. Aimed more for
the Lawrance Whelk generation than the Beetles. They kept Rooney around
because he reminded their average viewer of themselves.

Please make a distinction for me that I'm not saying all old people are senile
or even that its a good idea for one of our very few media corporations to
push the idea that all old people are senile, but I am stating objectively
there exists an infotainment news magazine format TV show oriented
specifically toward the idea of selling advertising to nursing home viewers
and their editorial spin is based on the idea the viewers are senile.

They're pretty good at their job, for better or worse. What I mean, is if you
don't like it, you're probably not part of the target market.

(Also I agree with you, Frontline gives the BBC a serious run for their money)

------
nexttimer
I think the majority of the US public doesn't even need any of that propaganda
to hang Snowden in public and continue to put up with corrupt DC.

------
LekkoscPiwa
Who is the target? I mean, seriously. Nazism had Jews. Communism had
bourgeois. Who is the enemy of the US Totalitarian Government. Because as we
all (well, maybe not all) know from school, the totalitarian Government to
exist needs two types of enemies: internal. And external. We know who the
external enemies are: so called "terrorists". So this begs the question, who
the internal enemy will be. They will probably also be called "terrorists".
But will these be "islam fundamentalists" like in the case with external
enemy. Or maybe so called "patriots"? Or OWS movements? I have no clue to be
honest. Who is the enemy? Which group the propaganda machine will sacrifice to
keep the wider populace in check, obedient and scared?

Seriously asking because from me this is the only point from understanding if
we are in fact dealing with totalitarians already or not yet. I assume this is
morphing slowly into a totalitarian state. But who will be sacrificed? Who
will be the internal enemy. That puzzle is missing for me. Who will be used to
keep us scared?

The scenario I think is possible: like with world trade centers,
via/nsa/whatever will do some kind of horrible 'terrorist' attack on the US
soil. Thousands will be killed. And the whole thing blamed on OWS -- or --
Patriots -- or -- both of these groups at the same time -- and prosecuted
without courts in concentration camps a.k.a "Gauntanmo Bay". I know, I know,
sounds like sci-fi. Anyone taking bets on that though?

Because that's the only part of the puzzle they are missing. And if you ask
me, the reason why they selected 'terrorism' as the target is not an incident.
That's the only tactics that can be employed successfully against strong,
organized total government effectively. Both Polish and French underground
soldiers were called terrorists by the Nazis.

If you take away democracy from people - at has already happened in the US
where whoever we vote into the office will just do the same thing - the only
option you leave them is violence. Terror. If you know and understand that -
as they USG had known for a long time - your first step will be making them
the public enemy #1 even before you start morphing the country into a
totalitarian state.

Who can be accused of terrorism? Even 82-old nuns are.
[http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-
the-f...](http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-the-fort-
knox-of-uranium-to-expose-lax-security)

Why not me for writing the above? The punishment? No right to lawyer, no right
to due process, torture, indefinite imprisonment in de facto concentration
camp. WAKE UP!

~~~
nisa
> Who is the target?

Every other nation. But there are no clear opponents. The struggle is to keep
the US economy alive and growing. Industrial espionage. Trade agreements.
Deregulation of markets if it is beneficial strong regulation otherwise.
Enforcement of policies that are beneficial to US based industries.

The war is an economic one.

