
An open letter from Carl Bernstein to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger - corin_
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/03/open-letter-carl-bernstein-alan-rusbridger
======
ch215
For me, the most worrying part of the whole Snowden affair is the absence of
anything even close to resembling a debate in parliament. The silence almost
speaks for itself.

First, Julian Smith secured a 30-minute Westminster Hall tirade on the "The
Guardian and its impact on National Security". It was like watching a
prosecution with no defence; Smith just declined to give way to any MPs who
held a different view.

Next, there was an exercise in PR from the three heads of the intelligence
services at the select committee. The questioning was appalling. It failed to
inspire any confidence in the committee's ability to oversee the secret
services.

Then, another committee had the audacity to call in the editor of The Guardian
to explain himself. Questioning again appalling. "Do you love your country?"
asked Keith Vaz. Others accused Rusbridger of being a criminal.

As far as I see it, other than the odd equally pointless question at PMQs and
a measly motion passed at the Lib Dem annual conference, the aforementioned's
about it in terms of any debate.

The issue that should be at the heart of the debate--state surveillance--has
been glossed over in parliament's response. There ought to be a public inquiry
into surveillance but, as Boris would say, I've about as much chance of being
reincarnated as an olive.

~~~
mercurial
Interesting. Though not a US national, I couldn't help but find it hilarious
that the head of the US Intelligence Committee would in the same breath both
condemn Snowden for not bringing his concerns following approved channels,
_and_ call for wholesale warrantless surveillance to be codified into law.

Same people, different location.

~~~
ch215
Agreed. The calamity of politics never ceases to beggar belief. As concerned
as I am about the surveillance revelations, I'm positively perplexed by how a
29-year-old contractor for a foreign government was allowed access to British
secrets like the names of covert agents. If anyone has breached national
security--it's not The Guardian who have been _relatively_ responsible--it's
those who allowed such a blindingly dangerous situation to arise. So many
questions, so few answers, so much for the “mother of parliaments”.

------
danso
I like Carl, maybe because I also prefer Dustin Hoffman over Robert Redford
(who played Woodward)...but this letter, and also how he's decided to teach
journalism at a public instead of prestigious private college, makes me think
he's a real standup guy as well as one of our most famous investigative
reporters.

[http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/iconic-journalist-carl-
bernstei...](http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/iconic-journalist-carl-bernstein-
joins-stony-brook-university/)

> _“I didn’t want to go to an Ivy League college or university — too many of
> them are stuck in a rarified approach to learning. I also wanted to be among
> a student body that had more young people who were not there by virtue of
> legacy or earning power of their parents._

Also, Bob Woodward has not been as gracious during the whole Snowden affair,
basically annoyed that Snowden didn't go to him, as opposed to his apparently
inferior WaPo colleagues, such as Barton Gellman, who's a Pulitzer-winning
journalist (twice) himself:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/barton-gellman-
bob-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/barton-gellman-bob-
woodward_n_4317547.html)

~~~
larrys
Oh please. As if everyone going to an IVY League (or similar) school is there
because of legacy or earning power of their parents?

"that had more young people who were not there by virtue of legacy or earning
power of their parents"

I think that's a huge leap.

Not only that but the IVY League schools have a large number of students that
are there on scholarship and are given a great opportunity.

Harvard (as only one example) gives free tuition to certain students:

[http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-
free...](http://politicalblindspot.com/harvard-university-offers-free-tuition-
to-low-income-families/)

He can and should teach wherever he wants of course. But to cloak it in some
kind of higher purpose or respectability as if he is better than the person
who decides they do want to teach at a particular prestigious school I just
don't agree with that.

~~~
jckt
He said more people in Ivies are there because of legacy/earning power of
parents, relative to the average school (which I think is a rather
uncontroversial point). He didn't say _everyone_ , which is what you're
saying.

------
csandreasen
_Certainly terrorists are already aware that they are under extensive
surveillance, and did not need Mr Snowden or the Guardian to tell them that._

I see this argument used frequently, and I don't understand it all. I've been
under the impression that most people did not know about the scale and
capabilities of the NSA. This stuff was not public information. If the average
person didn't know about it, why would the people being actively targeted know
about it? Does the Guardian have evidence that "the terrorists" know about the
sources and methods used by the NSA that are being disclosed now?

 _Rather than hauling in journalists for questioning and trying to intimidate
them, the Commons would do well to encourage and join that debate ..._

I can't speak for the UK, since I haven't followed the reaction over GCHQ as
much, but the heads of the US intelligence community have been called in front
of Congress quite a few times since the leaks started to be questioned
regarding these programs. Several of their appearances were public, which is
rare for intelligence committee hearings. This debate is happening. That said,
if the press is holding onto a trove of information that the government claims
could do serious harm to national security, what exactly is wrong with calling
them forward to answer questions about how they intend to use it and how they
intend to ensure that what they disclose will not affect national security? I
would think that answers to those questions would certainly fall in the public
interest.

~~~
atonse
Even if you take the most high profile target in the last few years, Osama Bin
Laden, you can see that he essentially lived in an electronic black hole.
There wasn't even an internet connection or phone line connected to the house
he lived in. They'd also burn trash on-site so that it could not be
intercepted.

Bin Laden also stopped using Satellite phones after it was clear that the NSA
et al were very easily eavesdropping on satellite phones. I don't have any
specific sources but this is the sort of the stuff I've read over the years.

Various terrorist groups have been aware of the general capabilities of
Intelligence Agencies, whether they knew or understood the nuances of the
technology is another thing.

It's us citizens who are shocked about the overarching abuses, I'm sure the
bad guys are the least shocked.

~~~
csandreasen
Bin Laden did, which was probably why he was so difficult to track down. My
understanding of the situation (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the rest of
Al Qaeda and their affiliates were not as careful with their security. He
might never be caught using an internet connection or cell phone, but it
wouldn't necessarily matter if 90% of his organization did.

Nuances would matter quite a bit, too. Bin Laden stopped using his satellite
phone after he suspected that the NSA could listen. But what about the
satellite phone made it insecure? The fact that uses satellites? Would a cell
phone be susceptible? GSM? CDMA? Only Motorolas? Are land lines secure? What
if they're encrypted? What encryption schemes are secure? I don't have the
documents off hand, either (sorry), but from what I've heard their overall
security was pretty lousy - I remember reading that they were doing things
like rolling their own encryption.

~~~
atonse
Oh that's not at all surprising that they tried to roll their own encryption.
But if they are already not that sophisticated, then they'd still not be able
to glean much value from these revelations.

Surely someone rolling their own encryption doesn't understand the big deal
with NSA's BULLRUN program (where they tried to weaken encryption algorithms
by planting people in teams and attempted to weaken protocols, or target
vulnerabilities in encryption libraries).

------
mercurial
Personally looking forward to the creation of an Un-British Activities
Committee.

~~~
ceejayoz
"You have been found guilty of not liking tea."

------
foobarqux
Bernstein's praise is misplaced, being directed at a member of the minor
political elite who sacrificed very little, and not to those who sacrificed a
great deal.

The people that who stuck their necks out were Snowden and Greenwald, not
Rudsbridger. In fact if the material was released in a different way, namely
only to a single news organization, or didn't have Greenwald fighting for
publication, Rudsbridger would have been loath to sign off on reporting on as
much as he did.

~~~
javajosh
But it's this letter that has a small chance of convincing my 65 year-old aunt
that Snowden did the right thing, not emphasizing the sacrifice of two
individuals.

She's a Democrat, and otherwise a good person (I'd even say she's a remarkably
good person) and she truly thinks Snowden is a traitor. In her mind the fact
of behind-the-scenes surveillance projects are secrets are like nuclear launch
codes or troop movements - e.g. legitimate "trade secrets" that the government
needs, in this case to prevent another 9/11 from happening.

Of course she's horribly wrong, because like most people she's pretty bad at
estimating risk. In this case, she's grossly over-estimating the risk from
terrorism, and grossly under-estimating the risk we assume when our government
gives itself surveillance super-powers over us (and in secret, no less!).

Anyway, this article might open up her eyes to the latter mistake, that she is
grossly under-estimating the risk of government granting itself such power,
not to mention the risk of a government exerting unprecedented influence over
the press. This letter connects this to something she knows about, and feels
strongly about: Watergate. So maybe she'll listen, and rethink her position,
and for that reason, it's a great article that I'll be emailing to her
momentarily.

~~~
foobarqux
If he wanted to praise Snowden for doing the right thing he should have
written an open letter to him and not Rusbridger.

~~~
gohrt
Bernstein is a journalist writing to a jourlanist (Rusbridger) about
journalism. That's his place, and why he is worth paying attention to in this
instance.

It is the place of intelligence contractors to speak up and defend Snowden's
actions in his role as a defense contractor.

------
booyaa00
I know this will be unpopular here, but personally, I would like to see the
Guardian prosecuted for its reckless reporting of stolen information in the
same way that phone hacking was dealt with.

You can't just steal documents from governments and publish them without any
consequences.

If your government is doing something bad, then it should be dealt with
legally, and via the established checks and balances. Newspapers shouldn't be
above the law.

~~~
jblow
How are you supposed to deal legally with your government doing something bad,
when it is illegal for you to know about the bad things?

Just think about your proposition for even ten seconds.

~~~
booyaa00
Just think about _your_ proposition for ten seconds.

You're suggesting that the entire government is corrupt, and covering up
'something bad'?

There are endless systems of checks, balances, and disclosure within our
government.

Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theories, endless theoretical debates about
what the government "could" do with data it has. It's moot.

~~~
jblow
It is the government's own claim that, for example, the President didn't know
what the NSA was doing:

[http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/politics/white-house-
stopped-w...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/politics/white-house-stopped-
wiretaps/)

In the absence of leaks and whistleblowing, how do you propose that this kind
of power be reined in?

