Reuters blog archive
from John Lloyd:
The files stolen from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden, the quiet American who has turned the security world inside out, drip out week by week – in The Guardian, on the new website The Intercept, financed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, in the German weekly Spiegel and in the Washington Post. The last of these outlets had the latest installment on Monday. It told us that “ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike” had been swept into the NSA’s computers in far greater numbers than foreigners reasonably suspected of possible terrorist links.
The leaks present the most profound challenges to free societies, because freedom is not a steady state -- once acquired, never lost -- but rather one that constantly waxes and wanes, loses and gains.
The first of these challenges is to journalism itself, and it’s twofold. Snowden, the journalist Glen Greenwald who is an associate in publishing the files and others in the “radical leaks” community, such as Julian Assange, believe that the extent of the surveillance and the power it gives to the state to oppress citizens is so great that only their form of journalism is capable of exposing the danger and rousing people to opposition. Greenwald writes in his memoir, No Place to Hide, that journalism must be “an act of aggression against the government.” He thinks that the check the Fourth Estate is supposed to provide to government “is only effective if journalists act adversarially to those who wield political power.” The largest dereliction of journalistic duty is to be “subservient to the government’s interests, even amplifying rather than scrutinizing its messages and carrying out its dirty work.” His view is an angry, uncompromising challenge to the values and practices of the mainstream media.
Yet the other challenge to journalism that industrial-scale leaking poses is that of the huge power it places in editors’ hands, as to what to publish and what to redact. Journalists, even responsible ones (and I believe in the responsibility of those who sit in the editorial chairs of the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Spiegel) cannot know in every detail what the dangers of publishing secrets are, how far they might aid would-be terrorists. It’s a reasonable suspicion that the security services exaggerate the danger. It’s unreasonable to suppose there is none.
from The Great Debate:
We live in a global, digitally networked world. Cloud, mobile and in-memory technologies are its engines. Our new world has no boundaries; there is a huge potential for growth, employment and new business models. But it also comes with challenges for policy and industry.
In response to leaks about the U.S. National Security Agency’s widespread surveillance, there have been lots of understandable concerns globally. Unfortunately, some parties have suggested building fortresses around national data.
from The Great Debate:
Germans are not naive: They know that states spy, and that attempts to listen in to Chancellor Angela Merkel's conversations were to be expected. But they didn’t expect that the United States would do this, for a decade.
Trust needs to be rebuilt. We must go beyond an exchange of accusations and counter-accusations over this issue. As allies and democracies, the United States and Germany can do this, with some imagination and effort, and the relationship can be improved as a result.
from Ian Bremmer:
What will the White House screw up next? Democrats have watched as one calamity after another has befallen what was once the most promising Democratic administration since John F. Kennedy’s. Obamacare, the NSA, Syria, heck, even the administration’s campaign foibles are back in the news with the publication of the new tell-all book Double Down.
Yet all is not lost. The Obama administration has not exactly bungled its way through five years of power. Until this year, in fact, Republicans were complaining that the press had been too kind towards Obama. With all the dour news, it is worthwhile to take stock of all the good things for which Obama can take credit. Bear in mind, some of these successes may not have been Obama’s ideal objective -- but the end results are victories regardless. These are the top eight achievements that not even Edward Snowden can take away, in descending order of importance.
from Mark Leonard:
The NSA scandal over phone tapping in Europe will soon blow over, conventional wisdom says. Jack Shafer has argued that, although allied leaders such as Angela Merkel are upset, they will (and have to) get over it.
Don’t believe a word of it. The public outrage that the NSA has spawned could be more damaging to the transatlantic relationship than the Iraq war was a decade ago.
from Jack Shafer:
If not yet the consensus opinion, by tomorrow morning most everyone with a keyboard and a connection to the Internet who isn't also a head of state will concede that the ally-on-ally spying by the United States -- revealed in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to Der Spiegel -- won't matter much in the long run.
This is not to say German Chancellor Angela Merkel has no right to be personally ticked off about the U.S. snooping on her phone calls since 2002. She does. This morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that upwards of 35 world leaders were spied on by the U.S. They have a right to be ticked off, too, but the protests are largely contrived. As Max Boot and David Gewirtz wrote in Commentary's blog and ZDNet, respectively, nations have traditionally spied on allies both putative and stalwart. One excellent reason to spy on an ally, Gewirtz notes, is to confirm that the ally is really an ally. Allies sometimes become adversaries, so shifting signs must be monitored. Likewise, allies may be allies, but they always have their disagreements. What better way to prevent unpleasant surprises from an ally than by monitoring him? Boot quotes Lord Palmerston, the 19th century British foreign minister and prime minister, on this score: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Hal Varian, Google’s chief economist, is unsurprisingly an advocate of data extraction and analysis on a mass scale – you’d almost have to be, as data-cruncher-in-chief of a company whose search engine was tapped a billion times just since this morning.
At the annual meeting of the National Association for Business Economics in San Francisco, Varian talked at length about how people can use software to make life better, describing one Google application that he said can retrieve information from your private calendar, check the traffic on the route to your next appointment, and notify you that you’d better leave shortly or risk being late. “I have to say, for some people, this completely freaks them out,” he quipped, but later added that for most kinds of information, the benefits of sharing information with your computer outweigh the costs.
from Jack Shafer:
At several recent junctures, the U.S. government has publicly sought to expand its power and control over the electronic privacy of its citizens. At each point, the government was roundly foiled by the public and the majority of the political class, which rebuked it. But that has evidently never stopped the government from imposing its will surreptitiously. As the reporting of the New York Times, ProPublica, and the Guardian about the National Security Agency's programs exposed by Edward Snowden showed once again yesterday, when the government really wants something, it can be temporarily denied but rarely foiled.
In the early 1990s, computer scientist and activist Phil Zimmerman created an encryption program called Pretty Good Privacy, or PGP for short, to block the government and other snoopers from reading the emails and files of users. To retard PGP, the government targeted Zimmerman with a criminal investigation for "munitions export without licenses" after the program appeared overseas, explaining that the program's encryption exceeded what U.S. export regulations allowed.
from Jack Shafer:
If U.S. prosecutors ever get their hands on Edward Snowden, they'll play such a tympanic symphony on his skull he'll wish his hands never touched a computer keyboard. Should U.S. prosecutors fail, U.S. diplomats will squeeze -- as they did in Hong Kong -- until he squirts from his hiding place and scurries away in search of a new sanctuary. But even if he finds asylum in a friendly nation, his reservation will last only as long as a sympathetic regime is calling the shots. Whether he ends up in Venezuela or some other country that enjoys needling the United States, he'll forever be one election or one coup away from extradition.
Even then, he won't be completely safe.
"Always check six, as we said when I used to be a flyer in the Air Force," said NSA whistle-blower Thomas Drake recently. "Always make sure you know what's behind you."
from Photographers' Blog:
By Bobby Yip
Hong Kong became the focus of the world's media this week after Edward Snowden, a former contractor at the National Security Agency (NSA) who leaked classified NSA information, gave The Guardian newspaper an exclusive interview and then went to ground somewhere in the financial hub - a town more used to a focus on money-making matters.
With more than 6,000 people living in every square kilometer, Hong Kong is one of the most crowded cities in the world. After checking out of the Mira Hotel where he first stayed, the public has no idea where Snowden’s current “safe house” is. One magazine article even suggested Snowden head ‘offshore’ and hide on one of the island’s iconic "junks".