
Q & A: Edward Snowden speaks to Peter Maass - teawithcarl
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html
======
mjn
For those not familiar with him, Maass is an interesting journalist mainly
focusing on international affairs. He's been following the surveillance story
for a bit, and has an archive of some of his articles from the past ~10 years
or so here:
[http://www.petermaass.com/articles/](http://www.petermaass.com/articles/)

He wrote a bunch of articles in the '90s as well, but doesn't seem to have
them on his site. However his reporting on the Bosnian War was collected into
a book:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679763899/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679763899/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0679763899&linkCode=as2&tag=kmjn-20)

Most relevant here, he wrote an article in mid-June criticizing the focus on
Snowden and Assange as personalities:
[http://www.petermaass.com/articles/we_steal_secrets_misses_t...](http://www.petermaass.com/articles/we_steal_secrets_misses_the_leak_for_the_leakers/)

------
digitalengineer
"I was surprised to realize that there were people in news organizations who
didn’t recognize any unencrypted message sent over the Internet is being
delivered to every intelligence service in the world. In the wake of this
year’s disclosures, it should be clear that unencrypted journalist-source
communication is unforgivably reckless. "

Not only the news people. My country's politicians as well. They didin't even
change the standard code for voicemail, exposing all their messages to anyone
with their number. For any whistleblower trust is the key. Even if you can
trust the journalist/politician, you need to know if they know how to guard
their communication. (Edit: typo's)

~~~
marquis
I've seen Universities have been security for their professors than
politician's laptops. It's truly bewildering - then there is the fact that the
technology MPs are generally not well versed in technology at all - witness
the myriad of awkward speeches given on tech topics in governments around the
world. Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in
office?

~~~
mjn
> Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in
> office?

One U.S. Congressman, Pete Olson (R-TX-22), does have a CS degree, from Rice.
He later studied law.

Engineers and physicists are slightly more common, though only slightly. And
one Congressman, Jerry McNerney (D-CA-9), has a PhD in mathematics.

~~~
s_q_b
Rush Holt (D-NJ-12) has a PhD in physics, and more than a passing
understanding of computation.

------
chiph
Through all of this, one of the things that impresses me about him is how
well-spoken he is.

Obviously, the interview was done over encrypted email, so he had the
opportunity to choose his words carefully, but even so.

During the interview his father did with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, he
also impressed me with his speaking ability, even under a high-pressure
situation like that.

~~~
corncobpipe
We're taking Laura Poitras at her word that she did not edit the interview.
There's no way for us to know if this is what Snowden actually said.

~~~
chiph
If you want to see what irresponsible journalism is like, read Benji Smith's
book "Abandoned Ship", especially the part about "Jenna McJournalist". Laura
hasn't (to our knowledge) behaved like that.

There's probably enough trust between them now that he isn't going to get
upset if a hash of his email doesn't match a hash of her quote of him. She's
also likely smart enough to realize that he could drop her at any time and the
other news organizations would be lined to up for exclusive access. So she's
going to act responsibly towards her source.

------
mtgx
This is an interesting article, too, about Laura and how she helped Snowden:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-
sno...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html)

~~~
acqq
The older important article on Laura Poitras mentioned there (in the full
version):

[http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...](http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/)

 _One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9 /11 era targets U.S.
citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little
attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of
Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no
crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when
they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even
seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other
papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their
contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No
oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S.
Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why._

------
panacea
I'm prepared to stand up (coward level: coward) and point out Obama's address
is titled [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/09/protecting-our-
sec...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/09/protecting-our-security-and-
preserving-our-freedoms) "protecting our security and preserving our freedoms"
which is "..."

A King-Kong level MEH.

~~~
acqq
Obama swore to protect the Constitution

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

 _I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States._

and now distracts everybody that his goal is to "protect the security." In
2006 he called G.W. Bush on the same ground!

Even the "secret" FISA court, the only court in charge of NSA, decided (in the
decision that is still classified as "secret") that what NSA does is
unconstitutional.

The President still does the distraction of the public with "protect the
security." Don't let this remain unnoticed.

------
TheAnimus
I hope that the media keeps focusing on the issues detailed by the
whistleblowing, rather than the story of said whistleblowing.

We shouldn't be distracted by a human interest story.

~~~
wfn
> I hope that the media keeps focusing on the issues detailed by the
> whistleblowing, rather than the story of said whistleblowing.

Of course, completely agree.

> We shouldn't be distracted by a human interest story.

But there is a value in looking at people and using stories and those people's
outlooks as our own role models for the future.

------
aridiculous
"Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically avoid
contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything was a
surprise."

Ouch — poor choice of words. He indirectly classified himself as a spy. The
media will be all over this. He needs to be more careful with his language.

~~~
windexh8er
Technically he was a spy - for the NSA. I would believe that is the context
the statement is being made for his definition of.

~~~
ash
He is also a spy in the sense he spied information _from_ NSA for the public.
In some sense he is people's spy.

------
wehadfun
Like his comment about the presses job to check the government. I don't know
if the press still values or even consider this their job. Do we need to have
a charity news organization that focused on checking the government.

------
samstave
What a short article. It ended just as it was getting going.

Weird.

------
drunkenmasta
There really isn't much to see here. After reading I thought I had missed
something, perhaps one of those "page 1 of 30" things at the bottom. But to
get the "full story" I'm told to buy some magazine or whatever. So much for
releasing information in the public's interest. It's time to Jason Bourne this
thing and make some MONEY off of it!

~~~
dale386
Where are you told to make a purchase? That's the full story, as it will
appear in Sunday's NYT Magazine.

------
alan_cx
"P.M.: Laura started filming you from nearly the start. Were you surprised by
that? Why or why not?

E.S.: Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically
avoid contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything
was a surprise. Had I intended to skulk away anonymously, I think it would
have been far harder to work with Laura, but we all knew what was at stake.
The weight of the situation actually made it easier to focus on what was in
the public interest rather than our own. I think we all knew there was no
going back once she turned that camera on, and the ultimate outcome would be
decided by the world."

He intended to "skulk away anonymously". Then the journalists get involved,
and it seems that it was too late for that. This seems to imply the
journalists had something to do with that.

I don't know how to stop this sound like and accusation or judgement, which
its not supposed to be, and generally speaking Im a Guardian supporter, but I
get the feeling that he was led in much deeper than he wanted by these
journalists. May be he was pushed? Maybe he decided? I don't know.

Yes, it hard to get off a moving train, as it were. But I wonder if there was
as much coercion as there was motivation on his part. I wonder how much
control he had once the journalists got involved. Or maybe that is normal for
things like this.

I'd love to know a lot more about how this worked in general.

~~~
quantumpotato_
Good comment, why is this greyed out?

~~~
AlisdairO
Because it's based on a misreading of the article.

