Skip to main content

Image originally posted at http://lifehacker.com/...
Edward Snowden isn't a whistleblower. He's being called a whistleblower by corporate media outlets, including the Guardian UK. Snowden fits the profile of another story that took off in the media, about a young 'hacker' with significant IT skills, trying to fight the government. Like Aaron Swartz, the reporting on Snowden is less about what he's saying, than who he is as a person. He's a media package.

But he's not really a whistleblower. This distinction must be understood in order to engage with critical thinking on how the United States should address the moral questions surrounding the NSA's activities. In addition, this kind of thinking will illuminate the lack of of government oversight by corporate news outlets.

There is almost nothing in Ed Snowden's revelations that is news to anyone that's been paying attention to the NSA since 2001. The Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and many other media outlets are engaging in journalistic kabuki, masquerading as surprise. We're being entertained by a media package that feels substantive, even though we're largely replaying events of the last 12 years.

Because, in truth, there is very little in what's being reported about the NSA's spying activities that's new.

If you need your memory refreshed, then here's a story in the New York Times in 2005 about the NSA spying domestically. If you truly weren't aware, then here's a link to an article on Raw Story with clips from NewsHour in 2006 talking about domestic spying. Here's a story that Frontline did called Spying on the Homefront in 2007. Here's James Bamford in 2008 talking about the NSA. Here's another story in 2008 talking about the NSA spying domestically, this time from the Wall Street Journal. Here's a story from later in 2008, talking about changes to the FISA laws that would allow domestic spying. And here's another story from Ars Technica, this time in 2009, reporting that the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review upheld the constitutionality of the NSA's activities.

Let's stop for a moment. You can disagree with the court's ruling in 2009. But, as of now, the ruling stands. What the NSA is doing is legal. Let me repeat that. What the NSA is doing is legal under US law. That doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's legal.

Everything, the listening, the internet intercepts, the laws that tech companies follow when issued FISA warrants, the FISC itself, all of it is legal. The information about these activities has been public for years. It just hasn't gotten attention. Even if PRISM didn't have a name in the public consciousness until a week ago, the capabilities that the NSA has that allow such a system to work have been public record for years.

In addition, this legal activity has been reported for years. Those links are a small snippet of the already available public information. Notice that there are no links to Infowars.com, or to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any conspiracy websites. Even if I think the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is batty, it's a respected publication. And there it was, in 2008, talking about the NSA and domestic spying.

The same arguments are appearing in the same channels in 2013. The NSA program is unconstitutional. The program is illegal. Of course, to determine legality, you need courts, lawyers, arguments, time, money, and above all, precedence. In addition, there's the simple fact those legal arguments have lost and continue to lose. This is why the law is settled; the courts haven't accepted any arguments that the NSA's programs are unconstitutional or illegal. The basis for this is a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, centered essentially on the right to privacy of phone records. Essentially, because the phone records actually belong to the phone company, there is no right to privacy. Start here with a recent recap from the Atlantic if you want to know more.

But since when are constitutional and legal synonymous with moral? Jim Crow was, at one time, constitutional and legal. As was slavery, suppression of women's voting rights, and more. Legal is not the same as moral.

And this leads us to the point. There's 2 questions we should all be asking. The first is a simple question, probably the most important.

Question 1: Is what the NSA is doing MORAL?

The country had this debate in 2001, 12 years ago, when the Patriot Act was passed. Progressives, civil libertarians and liberals argued vehemently that the Patriot Act would do more harm than good.  That 'side' in the debate lost; the US decided to give up liberty in the name of security. We have been very secure since 2001.

Are we safer? Are we better off? Do we really need this possibility of intrusion into our private lives?

While you can't legislate morality, legislation itself has a moral component. And in this case, if you know the history of the NSA and the current domestic spying programs, you know that the legal authority that it relies upon stems from the Patriot Act and the Authorized Use of Military Force against Terrorists.

To put it simply, ending the legal framework for the NSA's current domestic spying activities is simple. Repeal the Patriot Act and the AUMF against Terrorists. There might be fallout from doing this, unintended consequences, disruption of other Federal programs that rely on that legal framework, outside of the NSA.

But if the desire is to simply get rid of the NSA program, doing so would be a simple act. Pretending otherwise is bloviation of the worst kind.

And you should ask yourself, why aren't the editorial pages of the country on fire with this question? Why the focus on regurgitating past news, on pretending that our media and government elites somehow didn't know about these programs?

That leads us to Question 2.

Question 2: Should we continue to allow corporate media and Congress to act surprised at what the NSA is doing, given how well documented their activities have been?

Historically, our country has relied on media to act as a watchdog against the 3 branches of our federal government. We call journalism the 4th estate. And it's in a sorry state these days. Consolidation. TV journalism is now punditry, less investigative reporting. Newspapers are closing. Journalists are underpaid, more so now than ever before, and over worked. Does anyone follow a beat anymore? Is there anyone writing for Time magazine that's been keeping up with all this public information? What about Salon.com?

If all this information is public, then how can Ed Snowden be a whistleblower? Perhaps, by calling him a whistleblower, or a traitor, both media elites and politicians can feign ignorance about the NSA's activities. Because if Ed Snowden isn't a whistleblower, if the bulk of what he's saying is already available to the public (if not well-reported or publicized), then what does that say about our media culture? About our politicians?

It says that the media's job of watching over the government is failing. It means that the Congress's job of representing their constituents interest isn't being done. It means that people who should know better won't be held to account for not doing their jobs.

And it means the Democracy is slipping out of our fingers.

Ed Snowden is a great package for a news outlet seeking clicks. He's young, like Aaron Swartz. He's the same age as a group of young people who probably weren't aware of what was happening in the news in 2005. He's a techie. He's a hacker. His story has all kinds of juicy hooks. He's supplying extra drama, by talking about his fear of assassination, by fleeing to Hong Kong, by having a girlfriend in Hawaii who's a stripper. All of these together make a great hook.

But if he's not a whistleblower, there is no story. So, if you want the hook for your story, if you want those clicks, if you want to pretend this is news, he has to be a whistleblower. If you don't want to admit that all the information you have is public, that you aren't spending money on investigative reporters, that you don't have a Woodward or a Bernstein on your staff, that all you're doing is regurgitating what the other guy is talking about, because your overworked editors and underpaid reporters can't even look in the archives of your own publications for news on this story, then you have to pretend this information is all new.

If you don't want your Congressional constituents asking thoughtful questions like, "Why didn't you know about this, when you voted on this law in 2001?" then you have to pretend to be surprised by what you're reading in the news. That same news that is also pretending to be surprised.

Don't be fooled.

Ed Snowden is not a whistleblower. He's a media package. And the story is still about him. If it remains about him, if the story doesn't pivot to the media's failure to publicize this story without a sexy package, if we pretend that it isn't as simple as repealing the Patriot Act and the AUMF against Terrorists to stop this activity, if we don't switch to the real debate about the morality of these programs, then we're likely to repeat history.

And that means, by the end of the summer, roughly 2 and a half months from now, this story goes away. As interest in Ed Snowden wains, in the current context, so too will interest in the story wain. It took roughly 3 months for stories about Aaron Swartz to disappear from the media. That's probably the shelf-life of our latest young hacker in the news.

I hope I'm wrong.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Id be surprised if the story sees August (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    effdot, Fishgrease

    All we need is an immigration reform vote (regardless of which way it goes) and this will be off the front page.

    This is the most media coverage this story is going to get.  Its red hot right now.  ...and still, a sizable chunk of people are underwhelmed.

    This is the high-water mark, and it ain't that high.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:54:56 PM PDT

  •  Great diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    effdot

    Well said, and I agree completely on this.

    I would add though that the NSA has had legal access to phone records since 1979 when the Supreme Court ruled these records are not protected under the 4th amendment. Technology has advanced and so has this data gathering (no shocker there), eliminating it would take more then repeal of the Patriot Act, it would take de-funding and/or explicitly making it illegal to collect this data.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:57:57 PM PDT

  •  You realize that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    effdot

    "Critical thinking" is not allowed in connection with this particular issue.

    You are allowed to take sides, but not to question nor to raise the topic of "morality".

    Nor are you allowed to propose any action that might help resolve the many layers of dilemma integral to the issue and controversy. Well, not unless you have a Harvard sinecure and are prepared to say (paraphrase) "Live with it."

    Someone posted recently that the only thing that needed to be done was repeal of the Patriot Act and the AUMF, and the problem would largely be solved.

    No one in a position to do anything about it is suggesting repeal, are they?

    Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

    by felix19 on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 05:01:52 PM PDT

  •  What is most significant about this story is how (0+ / 0-)

    defense contractors can order cyber attacks upon other countries. Remember Iran and the shut down of their subtrifudges? That could have led to a melt down and possible the instigation of WWIII.

    Sorry for the drama but if the military industrial complex wants to justify itself to the American people who are pretty sick of war right now and would prefer to scale back on military engagement and cut the budget of the NSA and
    Pentagon,this could be a way to stoke the fires of justification.

    Snowden is not the real story here. He can fade away if he needs to but we are still left with the need to justify all the expense of war at a time when Americans are going hungry.

  •  legal vs constitutional is still unresolved (0+ / 0-)

    the secrecy surrounding these programs has many uses, one of the most important is to delay or deny court challenges.
    It is apparent to many legal scholars, not to mention people with reading comprehension skills, that the Fourth Amendment is at least compromised by this activity. That the bush and Obama admins have taken an overbroad interpretation of these questionable laws on top of that is also troublesome.
    so, as it is at this moment, the NSA activites are legal insofar as they are covered by a law passed by congress that has at least a strong appearance of unconstitutionality, and an interpretation and execution of that law that stretches the legality even further.

    the issue of the legality of the NSA spying is not as settled as this diary implies, unless the diarist has concluded that the congress and the courts are incapable/unwilling to rise to this challenge (a POV I wouldn't argue against, given everything else...)

    Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

    by kamarvt on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 04:56:01 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site