
On PRISM, partisanship and propaganda - eightyone
http://guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaganda-prism
======
joe_the_user
Take note, I believe Greenwald deals with the primary objections that have
been raised here.

This is just one of his strong arguments: _" The New York Times reports today
that Yahoo went to court in order to vehemently resist the NSA's directive
that they join the PRISM program, and joined only when the court compelled it
to do so. The company specifically "argued that the order violated its users'
Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures."

If, as NSA (and Silicon Valley) defenders claim, PRISM is nothing more than a
harmless little drop-box mechanism for delivering to the government what these
companies were already providing, why would Yahoo possibly be in court so
vigorously resisting it and arguing that it violates their users' Fourth
Amendment rights? Similarly, how could it possibly be said - as US government
officials have - that PRISM has been instrumental in stopping terrorist plots
if it did not enhance the NSA's collection capabilities?"_

~~~
jholman
Actually, I think the bits you quote exactly show how Greenwald isn't
demonstrating a very high standard of integrity here. I really want to take
him seriously (although, in honesty, I also really want to believe that my
employer, Google, is ethical), but even in the small bit you quoted, there are
two major mistakes that completely change the story.

First, the NYT article that Greenwald links, by Claire Cain Miller, does make
that claim (that Yahoo resisted joining Prism). However, it gives zero
evidence, and in fact accidentally gives evidence against the thesis. As their
evidence that Yahoo fought against Prism, they cite a court report that _doesn
't talk about Prism at all_. It talks about Yahoo fighting FISA orders. (I
didn't read every word, but I can manage a text-search. And while the docs
never mention the Prism program (admittedly there are many many redactions),
it does use the word "prism" in an innocent context. Would you let that slide,
if you were redacting a document about a secret program called Prism?) As far
as I know, nine out of nine accused companies agree that they comply with FISA
orders if they receive any, and yes that presumably includes complying with
the gag orders. On the other hand, while we're on the subject of those orders,
several of the companies have publically stated that they fight to limit the
scope of those orders, often refusing to fulfill requests until they're
clarified or narrowed (or until a judge says "yes, really, do it like I said
the first time").

It's kind of amazing that Greenwald turns such actions, protective on behalf
of users, into an accusation of hypocrisy.

Second, far less important but still evidence of Greenwald's modest commitment
to getting the details right... I have yet to see a statement by any of the
nine companies that "Prism" is "a dropbox". I've read articles by reporters
saying that insiders said that. Meanwhile, several of the companies, including
Google, have publicly said that there is no such dropbox, and that information
is delivered by various means, including SFTP and courier. (I admit, I liked
the dropbox/work-tracker theory. Oh well.)

I would really like Greenwald's core goal, of focusing the public ire on
getting some light shed on surveillance, and surveillance policy. I think
there's a lot of good to be done there. But this article is just crammed full
of dodgy claims. In fact, now that I've gotten started, let me pick a few more
of them apart.

In the section marked (3), he says that Drake wrote that he (Drake) saw all
the same things at the NSA that Snowden is writing about. Read the source.
Drake very obviously means that at a very high level; Drake saw stuff that
seemed unethical, Snowden saw stuff that seemed unethical. And then he says
that Binney said that Snowden's claims are absolutely true. Watch the video or
read the transcript, that's not what Binney says. Binney says that he believes
Snowden (which is interesting, true, but not the same). Regarding Prism
specifically, Binney spends most of his time talking about something else
(wiretapping fibreoptics), and then ends with something equivalent to "but I
bet they'd _like to_ have access to more data, more directly" (paraphrasing
mine, emphasis mine, read it for yourself). Seriously, that is some seriously
deceptive writing by Greenwald.

Small quibble: I note that he says they didn't allege the Prism accusations,
but rather claimed that they had a document claiming these things, and cites
his own headline. I think he's insane. When a headline says "NSA program taps
into user data of Apple, Google, others", that sure sounds to me like the
headline is claiming that it's true. I guess this kind of weaseling is what
it's like to be a yellow journalist.

Further down he references Elias Groll's week-old article about "spin",
extensively quoting Chris Soghoian. I'm not a big fan of that article, but the
day it was published, it wasn't obviously full of nonsense. It claims that the
wording of various public statements was very legalistically chosen to be
technically true but give the wrong impression. I disagree, but respectfully.
But by the time Greenwald references that article a week later, every one of
the claims made in that article have been debunked, in the sense that
executives (in Google's case, that means Larry Page and David Drummond) have
clarified and said "no no, we weren't weaselling... no access at all... you
asked us about direct access, we answered about that, but there's no access of
ANY kind, and we don't do sweeping surveillance, and we always have a lawyer
in the loop, and so on and so on". I mean, they could be lying. But Groll's
claim that they're weaseling is obviously false, at this point. Why, then,
does Greenwald reference Groll's now-disproven article? Oh, right,
demagoguery.

He next quotes an NYT piece on "secret meetings", but read the piece, you'll
see that it's a combination of "the government WANTS crazy access" (which I
believe), and "MAYBE SiVa gave up the goods!!" speculation (which is... well,
wild speculation).

Then he brings up Perlstein, and calls him a liar. Read Perlstein's piece
(linked), and Perlstain's "Response to Glenn Greenwald" (not linked), and
you'll see that Perlstein's right: Greenwald hasn't answered the point that
Perlstein thinks is critical. And Greenwald gives an interview on MSNBC as an
example of him answering the points, and he's crazy, he doesn't answer the
points at all (though Greenwald does, overall, make a _very_ good showing in
that interview, IMO). Perlstein's specific point is a (totally technically-
correct) nit-pick about the word "servers" (the only discussion of this in the
MSNBC interview involves Greenwald saying, in effect, "I have no idea if it's
true, I'm just telling you what I was told"). Perlstein's broader claim, btw,
is somewhat similar to my own here, which is that Greenwald is combining good
reporting with sometimes-very-sloppy reasoning, and that it's sabotaging his
own credibility, and he should get it right.

And finally, in Update 1, is the bit you quoted, possibly the worst reasoning
in the piece.

\---------

The thing is, there's a lot of good stuff in this article. It starts with a
totally excellent reference to reporting on Loretta Sanchez's on-the-record
remarks, which the public should hear about. And it's worth reminding people,
as he does, that Wyden and Udall were yelling over a year ago, perhaps on this
very topic (since they were vague, it's hard to be sure). I agree with him
that this shit should make you think twice about partisan politics. And I
agree that the meta-secrecy, blocking the EFF/ACLU/etc from even knowing about
court rulings that may or may not rule the secrecy legal, are mind-boggling
and very very hard to see in a positive light. (Tho I do take writings from
the EFF with a grain of salt, much as I love them overall).

Moreover, Greenwald overall puts his focus where it should be: on the
government. I mean, if he's right about all this complicit bullshit from tech
companies, some focus is due there too, but it's minor by comparison. The real
issue is government, and Greenwald agrees.

Goddammit, Greenwald, you're right about so much. Get your fucking act
together on the last 20%, man!

------
D9u
As the old adage goes, "It's not fascism when we do it."

I see far too many people who believe that Democrats can do no evil and that
Republicans are evil incarnate, when the reality is that it took both parties,
working together for decades, to arrive at the current juncture.

~~~
stackedmidgets
Fascism has a particular meaning that most people misuse. While presidents
like FDR took a lot of inspiration from the fascists, it's tough to say that
the US is authentically fascistic. First of all, it's mistaken to proclaim
that a government is something that it claims that it's not. Second, the US is
too pluralistic in terms of policy towards culture to be considered fascist.

You can say that a system is bad or dysfunctional without likening it to the
Italian and German/Austrian governments under Mussolini and Hitler. If you
read Mussolini's speeches + books or Hitler's books + speeches (not that
they're terribly interesting except as historical documents), you learn that
most people using 'fascist' as a pejorative don't really understand what it
means.

The US is just as it claims it is: a democracy. There are good reasons as to
why thinkers ranging from the founding fathers of the US to Aristotle were
skeptical about the long term viability of democracy as a system of
government. All these brutal, freedom-sacrificing policies are absolutely
necessary to maintain democratic government. This is something most modern
Westerners are unwilling to acknowledge. Spooks in the NSA and elsewhere at
least comprehend that what they do is necessary to maintain their government,
as reprehensible as their actions are.

What do you get when you give 300m+ people political power? The same disaster
that many of the founders predicted would happen: tyranny, social dissolution,
and foul policies motivated by envy.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> "There are good reasons as to why thinkers ranging from the founding fathers
> of the US to Aristotle were skeptical about the long term viability of
> democracy as a system of government."

I see what you're referring to and utterly misrepresenting, maybe this can
help:
[http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970303.htm](http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970303.htm)

 _QUESTION: Isn 't that erection of barriers to democracy woven through the
entire history of the United States?

CHOMSKY: It goes back to the writing of the Constitution. They were pretty
explicit. Madison saw a "danger" in democracy that was quite real and he
responded to it. In fact, the "problem" was noticed a long time earlier. It's
clear in Aristotle's Politics, the sort of founding book of political theory
-- which is a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the notion of democracy.
Aristotle recognizes that, for him, that democracy had to be a welfare state;
it had to use public revenues to insure lasting prosperity for all and to
insure equality. That goes right through the Enlightenment. Madison recognized
that, if the overwhelming majority is poor, and if the democracy is a
functioning one, then they'll use their electoral power to serve their own
interest rather than the common good of all. Aristotle's solution was, "OK,
eliminate poverty." Madison faced the same problem but his solution was the
opposite: "Eliminate democracy."_

> "All these brutal, freedom-sacrificing policies are absolutely necessary to
> maintain democratic government."

What exactly are you referring to? You seem to be arguing that the word
fascism is overused, and then go on to explain that democracy would lead to
tyranny, and at least the NSA understands that.

This is so broken I really, really wish you could elaborate. Call it morbid
curiosity.

~~~
stackedmidgets
You asked for elaboration, so...

Chomsky agrees with what I said! And it's more than just Madison. Read the
Federalist papers. Or this long letter from John Adams to John Taylor, source
of this shopworn quote on democracy [1]:

>"You say, I “might have exhibited millions of plebeians sacrificed to the
pride, folly, and ambition of monarcy and aristocracy.” This is very true. And
I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride,
folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to
the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long.
It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet
that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain,
less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy
or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those
passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and
when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When
clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for
their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and
the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have
conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never."

...

>"Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five-
and-twenty years.

>Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as
Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical
hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last
aroused and alarmed all the world, and produced a combination unexampled, to
prevent its further progress."

Currently, our politicians quite rightly talk of the US as a democracy,
because it is such a universal suffrage state within the shell of a republic.

>What exactly are you referring to? You seem to be arguing that the word
fascism is overused, and then go on to explain that democracy would lead to
tyranny, and at least the NSA understands that. This is so broken I really,
really wish you could elaborate. Call it morbid curiosity.

I'm actually quite familiar with the Chomsky critique of the American system
for restricting democracy. That's not what I'm referring to.

1\. I dislike it when people use 'fascist' as an all-purpose insult meaning
'form of government that I don't like that people have been propagandized
against.' I suggest that people actually read fascist tracts (like 'The
Doctrine of Fascism' [2]) if they're going to use the term. When people use
the word, their brains shut off. It's also vulgar to claim that fascism is
just the 'unification of corporations and the state.'

Now, part of the problem is that fascists were themselves gooey about the
definition of what their system was -- but it's clear that whatever economic
system they chose to use was subordinate to their 'spiritual' goals -- and
that 'spiritual' outlook is mostly absent in the US system. While the US
system may share certain characteristics of fascist states, it is not itself
fascistic, and proclaiming that it is just muddles the discussion. It confuses
effects with causes.

The reason why that's important is because if you believe that secret fascists
are the ones corrupting the republic, all you need to do is find the
scapegoats and hang them. The truth is that the source of these abuses comes
from a deeper source -- the idea that constitutions the source of some strange
law-magic that can restrict the actions of people in government. Regardless of
how clever it seemed in the 18th century, it's now quite obvious that paper
with words on it is not a source of eldritch government-restricting powers.

2\. Yes, the current state under democracy is entirely a predictable
consequence of the political form. I would say that Chomsky's reading of
'Politics' is incorrect in a general sense while being correct in a couple
specific aspects (saying that democracy is a counter-weight to oligarchy).
It'd be very tough to make a case that Aristotle saw a political system based
on the first principle that men are equal in any sense as workable (because he
writes the opposite in Book V, paragraph 3 [3]). 'Politics' is an essentially
cynical work that describes how all political systems tend to crumble with
time and the influence of human vice. While I can see why Chomsky would
interpret it in the way that he does, I'd say that he's cherry picking to make
a point for his favored system. Much in the same way that the founders did,
arguably, to lend a classical garland to their new republic.

Hope I've satisfied your morbid curiosity.

Anyway, the NSA's actions are consistent with the addled mission of the
American state as a whole. You can't provide security for Europe, the Pacific
regions, certain Middle East states, many parts of Asia, and the Americas
without a global surveillance state to support that mission. The main issue is
that the broad policies are not achievable and shouldn't be pursued in the
first place. Trying to limit what the NSA can do while also trying to preserve
current US policies is just confused. You can't have both privacy and Empire.
The former impedes the latter too much.

Yet, tyrannical aggression, both internationally and domestically, are popular
political platforms. 'The people' are just getting cold feet about what that
requires. Just another point against giving the wheel of state to the fickle
and blood-soaked hands of 'the people.'

[1][http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...](http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2104&chapter=159956&layout=html&Itemid=27)
[2][http://www.upf.edu/materials/fhuma/nacionalismes/nacio/docs/...](http://www.upf.edu/materials/fhuma/nacionalismes/nacio/docs/muss-
doctrine.pdf)
[3][http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.5.five.html)

------
Yaa101
One of the implications of PRISM is this:

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fjoris%2F2013%2F06%2F13%2Fhandel-
met-voorkennis%2F)

~~~
mrschwabe
Exactly. This is the kind of thing that completely undermines the free market.

And particularly detrimental to our economy, is not only PRISM - but any
secret deal carried out between a corporation & a government agency.

Google has had secret deals with the NSA for years [1] the scope of this
relationship is now being revealed, but I'd also love to know if and exactly
how much money has been transacted between these two 'partners'. Even if it's
$1 that transaction signifies Google's participation in undermining the free
market. Because how do we know that the NSA isn't funneling money to Google?
If the deals are secret, we have to assume the worst.

Best case scenario there is no money changing hands. Worst case scenario,
Google is being funded by the NSA to A) carry out tactics & strategies on
behalf of the NSA and B) to gain market-share and competitive advantage so
these operations can perpetuate. Highly immoral, deceptive, and completely
unfair to any business, startup entrepreneur, or hacker trying to make a
living in this industry.

[1]
[http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_house.html)

~~~
jholman
Secret deals with the NSA? First of all, bullshit. Second, that link claims
nothing of the kind. Do you even read?

The link claims that a group called Consumer Watchdog made those claims, and
then goes on to describe a pattern of partisan attack by that group,
preferentially against Google, including wild and implausible allegations.
Again, the majority of the column-space at PC World is casting doubt on these
allegations.

Maybe you're an NSA agent, mrschwabe, raking muck on innocents to cover up
your tracks. Can you prove that you aren't? How much money have they paid you?
Way to undermine the free market, you commie nazi! Best case, there's no money
changing hands, and you're a liar because you think it's funny. Worst case,
you're a traitor. (Note: in case you got hit by Poe's Law, this paragraph is
satire of your laughable reasoning, not an actual accusation.)

If Google were in bed with the NSA, they wouldn't be leading the charge
against NSL gag orders, by successfully campaigning the feds to let them
publish approximate numbers. (Credit where it's due, Calyx Internet is the
bravest corporate foe of NSLs that I know of. But after Calyx, I know of no
company as active as Google in resisting over-surveillance and fighting for
privacy.) (Also, note that NSLs, despite the name, are more-associated with
the FBI than the NSA, but my point still holds, because it's fedgov
surveillance.)

And Google's just-this-week petition to increase transparency over FISA
surveillance is also not consistent with favouring the NSA. More broadly,
Google has been trying to draw attention to this for years, but obviously
cautiously, because it's too easy for irrational crackpots to make the claims
you made.

We don't know for sure that Google isn't doing horrible things. But all of the
public evidence is 100% consistent with Google being active protectors of the
public against the government, and it is... less consistent, with the
opposite.

~~~
Yaa101
Your language and name calling stands out, it looks like an authorian in
damage control mode trying to influence the more dumb demography into
distrusting critique against FISA and the US government. I suggest you better
try that in a different place where that dumber demography reads.

~~~
mrschwabe
Kudos friend. I share your sentiment.

Regardless of jholman's allegiance - you elude to an important point that
should be understood by anyone reading HN. There are people on the payroll of
military contractors actively engaged in discussions online via fake accounts
on all the major social networks. "Operation Earnest Voice" is has reportedly
a budget of $200m.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-
oper...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-
social-networks)

A lot of the discussions on HN these days really do look suspect.

~~~
jholman
Yaa101's sentiment is that I sound pro-NSA. That's a joke. Why would you agree
with that?

I strongly agree with you about astroturfing though, and I think it's
depressing and reprehensible.

And, in case I haven't made this disclosure in a place where you've read it, I
_am_ at this time gainfully employed by Google, and I'm sure this distorts my
thinking. I really really _want_ to believe that Google is not evil, because
if Google is evil than I have to decide if I quit this awesome job, etc etc,
and that desire probably has some effect on my judgement. I encourage everyone
to be cautious about everything everyone says, including me.

I don't think there's a lot of astroturfing on HN, though, if any. (For one
thing, HN is pretty fringe). But also, the comments never say "don't worry
it's all okay". Most of the comments raise crazy conspiracy theories, and
other ones point out actual holes in crazy conspiracy theories. Hmn, though
there are also people jumping on every most-recent theory that makes things
look okay, actually... and that would be good astroturfing, so maybe I take it
back. Actually, upon consideration, if I was the NSA, I'd post more theories
like yours. Not that I'm accusing you personally. (Again, to protect against
Poe's Law: this paragraph was sincere, not parody.)

What I'd like to see more of, in these discussions about surveillance, is
theories putting the facts together in ways that make sense, and theories that
are actually consistent with the facts we have. When you said that that
PCWorld link backed up claims of Google-NSA backroom deals, that made no
sense. Just read it. When you said (in a more-recent comment) that the CIA is
invested in many SiVa companies... well, I don't agree with your conclusions,
but your pattern of reasoning is a lot more plausible. Partly because you
didn't go too far, like saying "this proves that Google is just a CIA front
company". Because it doesn't prove much of anything... but it IS part of the
set of facts that are interesting.

I am perpetually disappointed at how everyone seems to read one or two
articles, and feel they have enough facts to stop reading and form an opinion.

------
cpleppert
>>I know that many Democrats want to cling to the belief that, in Perlstein's
words, "the powers that be will find it very easy to seize on this one error
to discredit [my] NSA revelation, even the ones he nailed dead to rights".
Perlstein cleverly writes that "such distraction campaigns are how power does
its dirtiest work" as he promotes exactly that campaign.

How in the world could he make this mistake? Are the five slides the only ones
he has out of the 40,000 documents that refer to PRISM? Why hasn't Snowden
directly commented on this issue, or even better; why didn't Greenwald contact
him when this issue came up?

I do think he jumped to conclusions based ont the slide; but the truth is, it
isn't a closed issue. Intelligence sources and company executives sources
continue to give somewhat differing answers about exactly what PRISM is or
does. Some suggest that Greenwald got it about right the first time and it
really is capable of pulling data on demand from company servers. Simply
saying that PRISM is just a GUI interface doesn't rule out the possibility
that such an 'active' data source is closely associated with the program.

------
rikacomet
Isn't the problem about this PRISM and other similar schemes, due to economic
reasons? I mean, hey! These companies have to have, a registered office in
some country, if its a big country, you get direct political pressure, and if
not, the small country is given a small compensation (big one for it) to get
the things moving.

Now this pressure is somehow made possible thanks to the profit motive of
these companies, because they have on the line tax structures, say facebook
has Ireland (?), so the U.S govt may have used the option available to any
govt in this case:

Declare it abuse of law

or

Declare it a clever strategy, they can't do anything about.

So a few heads are cleared, some resignations are made, few whistle-blowers
emerge, and you have the perfect recipe of social outrage.

