First let me say that, for historic reasons, I'm not a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald and he's even blocked me on twitter for mild divergence of opinion. But I do think Edward Snowden's leaks to the Guardian are significant, and because they contain Top Secret rather than just classified material like the state department cables leaked (allegedly) by Bradley Manning, could well be as important as the Pentagon Papers.
Tonight CNET is confirming that the warrantless surveillance goes well beyond meta data
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.
This is an issue of privacy versus security which is too important to be left to irrelevant pro/anti administration arguments. As Heather Brooke, the journalist who brought the wikileaks material to the Guardian, says for a piece I'm writing for the New Republic:
“The flip side of the digital revolution is that this technology is so easily hijacked by state surveillance”
This is larger than any particular messenger. I don't really care if you love/hate Greenwald or Assange. As
Kirsten Powers says about Snowden in the Daily Beast
In his 2003 book, Why Societies Need Dissent, liberal law professor Cass Sunstein pointed out that, in society, “a single dissenter or voice of sanity is likely to have a huge impact.” But the problem for dissenters is that they “have little incentive to speak out, because they would gain nothing from dissenting” and in fact might be punished.
Snowden knew this and he did it anyway. He clearly understands something that those screaming "traitor" do not: the allegiance we have as Americans is to the Constitution, not the institution of government. Snowden summed it up best when he told a South China Morning Post reporter this week, “I’m neither a traitor nor a hero. I’m an American.”
So I ask those who have trusted the administration whether now is not the time to call in your support and put pressure for reform.
And for those who've never trusted the government over anything, to put away your righteousness and focus on the point
6:02 PM PT: This is the hearing the article seems to be based on. The discussion is about 'content' of calls. The senator refers then to a secret briefing that content could be accessed so easily
6:33 PM PT: Final update before I hit my British sack. The congressman's questions clearly refer to 'content' not 'metadata'. Whether or not he understood the secret briefing is another matter. But the fact legislators are confused by the technological possibilities of digital surveillance means that - even if the CNET article has made a bold declaration about something more uncertain -- the uncertainty itself leaves a vacuum where abuse of power can thrive
6:55 PM PT: Still some debate whether the congressman is referring to metadata or content. Here's a brief transcription that should remove the ambiguity of the question - if not the answer
If you've gotten information from metadata and think that gee 'this looks suspicious' and we ought to get the content of that phone, do we need a new specific warrant?.... we heard precisely the opposite the other day
Sun Jun 16, 2013 at 4:45 AM PT: Morning update: well I've still to see any comprehensive refutation of the CNET and Guardian pieces and I read them both on the assumption that, as legitimate news agencies, they had other sources beyond the video
While so much of this is murky I will leave the title and the diary unchanged for discussion. Apologies to those who take exception to the wording of the title which was taken direct from the CNET subheading. Please add your reservations. Truth matters more than being 'right', If CNET and the Guardian they got it wrong, I'm sure we'll find out. And my wider concerns about digital surveillance will still be germane
I also hope this won't continue to be derailed by localised Kos wars, but it seems there is an attempt to do that. I won't link to the commenter in question, but this kind of ad hominem bickering seems particularly out of place
The only reason Brit is on the rec list is because he's part of the "rox" crowd but even some of them won't recommend this diary
I haven't posted here for a while. Others post here less and less. If people wonder why - just look to asinine attitudes like that.
Mon Jun 17, 2013 at 1:16 AM PT: Blimey. I had no idea this would still be on the rec list. In the deep British countryside all Sunday. Just now got Internet access. The comments show that CNET has retracted its story. So stand down. I'll be a mite more wary of CNET in the future but this story will rumble on