
Kill the Snowden interview, congressman tells SXSW - joesmo
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57620072-38/kill-the-snowden-interview-congressman-tells-sxsw/?tag=reddit
======
grej
I wonder much campaign money intelligence sector crony corporations have
donated to the dear congressman.

EDIT: To whomever downvoted me for this comment, I looked this up on
opensecrets.org. The answer is that the congressmen received a total of
$20,500 in his last election cycle from defense/aerospace companies, another
$10,500 from defense electronics companies, and yet another $6,000 from
miscellaneous defense companies (total $37k). While those are not dominant
contributions for him, they are significant. And that is a real problem when
you have to ask yourself, would this person be making this statement and
taking this position if they weren't receiving that money? We simply don't
know the answer. Their financial support means he has a vested interest in
keeping the funding flowing to these companies, which means not curtailing
intel budgets.

~~~
Joeri
Couldn't it be the case that the senator is actually a human being who
honestly believes that Snowden is a traitor? I don't personally believe that
Snowden is any such thing, but I can understand people who do. I also find it
a bit hard to accept that all politicians are purely financially driven
automatons.

There may also be a selection principle at work, where those politicians who
honestly hold positions that benefit the defense industry get defense industry
dollars.

~~~
dhimes
But the congressman is supposed to uphold the Constitution, which includes
free speech. That's what rubs me the wrong way. Because he (apparently, please
correct me if I am wrong) signed this statement as a member of Congress, and
not as a private citizen, it makes a difference.

~~~
cstavish
He's not enacting a law to prohibit anyone's speech. He's simply requesting
that SXSW use "discretion" in its own speech. Although this isn't the best
analogy, it's like a concerned parent writing a letter to a magazine asking
them to refrain from publishing borderline obscene content. When TV/radio
personalities get their shows cancelled over inappropriate comments, that's
not a violation of free speech. In fact, it's an affirmation of free speech--
the network doesn't want to tarnish its brand.

~~~
dhimes
My point is that to do it as a private citizen is one thing; to do it as a
Congressman is quite another. It's all in how he signed his name.

------
Crito
A congressman saying that an interview should not take place really tells us
all that we need to know about just how much an interview should take place.

I can think of no stronger endorsement of an interview.

~~~
qq66
The notion that the congressman is always wrong is about as wrong as the
notion that he is always right.

~~~
venomsnake
I read mostly as a struggle against government imposed censorship. If
government doesn't want to talk about something it should be talked about
(very narrow NS exceptions allowed)

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
I really have trouble with the national security argument: can you think of a
case where we'd have a secret that admitting the existence of something would
seriously harm the nation (ie, talking about the fact we have nuclear
missiles, not the details of how to build them) AND which experts in other
nations would be unable to guess we were working on?

It seems that it's only used to cover potentially illegal things that the
administration/military/etc don't want to talk about with the public, rather
than because it would actually harm the nation to talk about them (except, of
course, that people might tell them no).

~~~
jerf
Yes; specific military plans. Study the details of the Normandy invasion for
one of the clearest examples in history. Specific capabilities of military
hardware is another example.

Mind you, I don't disagree that some unsavory things get hidden behind that
curtain. I wouldn't even disagree that the majority of things hidden behind
that curtain in modern times may be unsavory. Unfortuantely, the solution
isn't as simple as just removing the curtain.

~~~
polymatter
I read Derpderpderp's comment to be referring to the existence of plans, not
the specifics. The existence of the Normandy invasion plan was hardly a
secret. It was unavoidable that the Germans would be able to tell a major
offensive was being prepared. And one very clear candidate was for the Allies
to take the more direct route and hop across the channel. The exact specifics
(where paratroopers were being deployed and when, which beeches were to be hit
etc) are important secrets and my reading of his comment is that they should
remain secrets. But the actual existence of the plan was obvious and should
not be secret.

The militarily valuable secret is that the Normandy plan was that that was the
one the Allies were counting on. There were other plans, for example the plans
for the invasion of Sicily surreptitiously delivered into German hands by
Operation Mincemeat. Or plan to attack from Norway using Edinburgh as a
staging post as part of Operation Fortitude was another candidate. But the
existence of the plan is the

You do lose some military information. If the enemy knows you have the
capability to track someones movements based on his phone number, they are
likely to take mitigating measures. But without revealing this capability, its
impossible to have a democratic debate on the appropriate safeguards
necessary.

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
Most street level drug dealers were operating under the assumption that the
government could track cellphones. Osama bin Laden apparently went to great
lengths to avoid being associated with phones used in communicating details.

I would call cellphone tracking an open-secret: everyone that would benefit
from the knowledge already had guessed it, but the government was denying it
to the citizens for their own benefit.

------
beedogs
> Pompeo, R-Kan., said he was "deeply troubled" by the scheduled video
> appearance of Snowden, whom he described as lacking the credentials to
> authoritatively speak on issues pertaining to "privacy, surveillance, and
> online monitoring." Snowden's "only apparent qualification," Pompeo wrote,
> "is his willingness to steal from his own government and then flee to that
> beacon of First Amendment freedoms, the Russia of Vladimir Putin."

Right. If history has shown us anything, it's that a guy on the House
intelligence committee has no idea at all what's going on in the NSA.

~~~
baddox
What a dumb quote. Disregarding for the moment the wording, "willingness to
steal from his own government" combined with the fact that he worked for the
NSA absolutely gives Snowden the credentials to speak intelligently on these
topics.

~~~
mcv
Exactly. If Snowden is not qualified to speak on this subject, then who is?

------
coldtea
> _whom he described as lacking the credentials to authoritatively speak on
> issues pertaining to "privacy, surveillance, and online monitoring."_

That's a good thing, given that all the people with credentials giving
"authoritative answers" have been bullshiting us.

~~~
grej
Snowden was literally the catalyst for taking this entire conversation up
another order of magnitude in interest. It's questionable this topic would
even be at SXSW if not for him, much less headlining it. The congressman's
suggestion is laughable.

------
btilly
Who is he pandering to?

He's in congress. So aside from his financial backers, he just needs to pander
to the Republicans in his district who make it out to the primary. Because in
most seats, the winner of the primary + the way the seat leans determines who
wins the seat.

Thus he only needs to appeal to a small niche. And how any of us feel about it
is irrelevant. Understand that, and you understand the polarization of
politics in the USA. Understand the polarization, and you understand a lot
that is wrong with this country. :-(

------
molecule
Grandstanding attention whore accuses SXSW speaker of being a grandstanding
attention whore.

------
javajosh
This is one of those times I wish someone with detailed knowledge of national
politics could comment on this rather odd move. Why is a Congressman from
Kansas making a public comment about a speaker in an event in Texas? Is he
cementing his base? Pandering to his donors? It's not like SXSW is going to
go, "Oh, you're absolutely right congressman, why didn't we think of that
sooner?" so what's he really trying to achieve here?

BTW good on SXSW organizers for involving Snowden in some way. I suspect that
if you polled the participants you'd see a 90%+ Snowden approval rating.

~~~
Sanddancer
To a decent extent, statements like this are designed to get himself some ink
on a national stage, and throw his name out more on the national spotlight. He
knows perfectly well that the chances of SXSW listening to his request are
somewhere between slim and none, but at the same time, he can use this to help
any claim he wants to lay that he's tough on terrorism and national security.
Wouldn't be surprised if he's planning a move for senator or governor in the
near future.

------
ryanobjc
So credentials aside, surely the story of Snowden has a public interest
element, and is an interesting tale regardless of 'authoritative.'

Besides which, in a democracy, anyone can be credentialed enough to serve in
government.

I'm pretty sure that Mr Pompeo's action could be seen as chilling actions in
terms of the first amendment.

PS: I'm watching cosmos, Mr Tyson just said "... prosecuted anyone who dared
have opposing opinions to their own." He is talking about the catholic church
and galileo, but it seems fitting now.

~~~
sdrothrock
> Mr Tyson just said "... prosecuted anyone who dared have opposing opinions
> to their own." He is talking about the catholic church and galileo, but it
> seems fitting now.

I don't think the US government is hunting Snowden because he "dared have
opposing opinions [to theirs]," but rather because he stole state secrets and
released them to the public. (I'm not saying whether that's a good or a bad
thing here, just that that's why he's not the US government's best friend at
the moment.)

~~~
glenstein
In this case I think that distinction is artificial. For both Snowden and the
government, there's an integral relation between their actions and their
opinions.

~~~
smsm42
There is a relation, but Snowden is not in trouble for his opinion. It's like
if somebody has an opinion that robbing rich people is OK, and acts on it, and
gets arrested, the arrest would not be for an opinion but for the robbery. The
robbery was without doubt related to the opinion, but the opinion is not the
base for the prosecution, the specific criminal action based on it is.

~~~
glenstein
You seem to believe that a person who believes robbing is okay in general, and
a person who believes that they themselves should perform a particular robbery
have no differences in opinion.

~~~
smsm42
On the contrary, I believe that nobody can be prosecuted for saying robbery is
OK, but one can be prosecuted for actually committing the robbery. That's the
difference - opinion vs. action. Snowden's problem with the law is not opinion
but action.

~~~
glenstein
That seems to not be "on the contrary" at all. You don't seem to believe
differences in action reflect differences in opinion.

------
chrismcb
It is good thing that Pompeo is concerned about SXSW's speaker's credentials.
Because obviously that is why we have our government. But I'm a little
surprised to see that Pompeo doesn't think that Snowden can contribute to a
thoughtful and informed discourse.

------
jmnicolas
Hey at least he didn't say "kill Snowden" ... you see they're making progress
:-)

------
United857
Just another example of the Streisand Effect.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

------
jaworrom
Kill the congress. We are tired of incompetency.

~~~
weems
working as an Analyst at NSA is not 'credentialed' enough? He's not a
Intelligence State loyalist so he must be silenced. That is what this is
about. Nothing more, nothing less.

------
shmerl
Apparently they got used to violating the Constitution so much, that freedom
of speech doesn't concern them either.

~~~
camus2
probably wiping their asses with it as we speak.

------
seanhandley
"Snowden, whom he described as lacking the credentials to authoritatively
speak on issues pertaining to "privacy, surveillance, and online monitoring.""

.... wow. I can't believe the gall of him to seriously say that. Of all the
people on this planet, Snowden fits that criteria best.

The congressman clearly isn't in Kansas any more on this one.

------
minimax
I think the Snowden-in-Russia interviews are interesting to the extent that
they show how Russian "active measures" actually work[1]. You can see it in
the letter Snowden (and his handlers) recently sent to the European
Parliament[2]. It's pretty clever the way they have been able to send
thousands of troops into southern Ukraine, all the while fomenting distrust
(and distraction) among NATO members with Snowden.

1\.
[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/20140...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf)

2\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures)

------
bdcravens
A live signal presumably to his location, at a scheduled time? Even though
they can't do much with it (barring a World War instigating invasion), you
think the powers that be would be salivating over the potential intelligence
they could get out of it.

~~~
simfoo
I presume it will be a live stream over the internet. Deploying decoy streams
originating from Russia that have the same data characteristics as the real
stream (encrypted of course) would be a way to make it harder to find the real
origin.

------
scrrr
"Pompeo, R-Kan., said he was "deeply troubled" by the scheduled video
appearance of Snowden" \- yeah I'm sure he can't sleep at night.

Besides, don't US politicians at some point vow to protect freedom of speech?

~~~
tinco
That he is troubled and would recommend for Snowden not to speak at SXSW does
not mean that he would not fight for Snowden's right to speak there or
anywhere.

Perhaps he would not though, that depends on his beliefs.

------
ChuckMcM
Is he running for re-election or something? Seems like a quick way to get some
press coverage, although of the Streisand effect kind rather than the 'we
should listen to this guy' kind.

~~~
rosser
_Is he running for re-election or something?_

He's a member of the House; he's up for re-election every national election
cycle.

Given what I know of KS politics (I have friends and family who live there,
some of whom are very politically minded), his taking a tough-on-Snowden
stance will probably play very, very well to the people whose votes he cares
about. For his purposes, little else matters...

------
bertil
It’s a pet peeve, and I shouldn’t care that much but… Could we kill ‘virtual’
when used as ‘mediated’? Virtual is about not being real: it applies to
stories, dreams, projects. Skype (or whatever cryptographically more relevant
version Snowden will use) is as real as a phone, or a TV interview, and I
don’t remember anyone describing a phone call or radio as ‘virtual’.

------
Fuxy
Like anybody's going to care if the congressman approves of the interview.

It's sad to hear that the opinions of the leaders are so off from the opinions
of the citizens but that's precisely the reason for the leaks.

------
blueskin_
Sounds like an (accidental) great endorsement of the interview to me.

------
gergles
Oh sweet, prior restraint.

------
randuser
They should have killed the Snowden interview anyway because of all the stuff
going on with Russia and Ukraine right now. Snowden's voluntary exile to
Russia looks even worse to the general public and will overshadow anything he
actually says during the interview.

~~~
DanBC
The fact that Snowden has to go to Putin's Russia to escape the US and find
freedom of speech should make people realise just how weird the situation is
and iust how terribly the US and EU have behaved.

The UK detaining the spouse of a journalist for 9 hours, and the courts saying
that was fine, was appalling.

~~~
josephlord
You missed the worst bit, not only did they detain him they did so under
terrorism legislation on the basis that the information he might have been
carrying might be useful to terrorists.

The fact that the courts backed this interpretation brings all the terrorism
legislation into (further?) disrepute.

