The NYTimes Room for Debate today asks the question “Has Snowden Been Vindicated?” and features former Bush Department of Homeland Security official Stewart Baker. Now "former Homeland Security Official" is number 3 on the "probably going to be a smear job" warning list so I was prepared for it, but he set about his job of smearing the messenger with gusto. More on my first diary after the break.
The NYTimes Room for Debate today asks the question "Has Snowden Been Vindicated?" and features former Bush Department of Homeland Security official Stewart Baker.
Baker was clearly enlisted to represent the security establishment, and he set about his job of smearing the messenger with gusto:
Even if you like the debate, it’s hard to like the way Snowden and his journalist allies tried to game it
No wonder Snowden sought refuge in Hong Kong and Russia.
a growing majority believe that Snowden is harming the country. Soon they’ll realize that the damage is deliberate.
Snowden’s crimes have indeed caused us harm, but the worst is past.
He even includes bonus Russian and Chinese bogeymen on top of the traditional "he wants the terrorists to win" that every security establishment figure has trotted out when their actions are questioned:
On Snowden’s theory, Chinese hackers stealing American companies’ technology are the “good” spies, and so are Russian agents breaking into the homes of dissidents. But when the American government uses telephone records to construct a terror cell’s social graph, that’s bad spying.
A quick browsing of
Mr. Baker's biography on his Law Firm's website, is illustrative:
Mr. Baker’s practice covers national security, electronic surveillance, law enforcement, export control encryption, and related technology issues. He has been a key advisor on US export controls and on foreign import controls on technology. He has also advised companies on the requirements imposed by CFIUS. In addition, he was responsible for spearheading the government-private sector coalition that permitted major telecommunications equipment manufacturers and carriers to break the decade-long deadlock with law enforcement on wiretapping of modern technology, permitting successful implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”).
In 2010 Mr. Baker's memoir of his time at the DHS, Skating On Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism, was published by Hoover Press. Drawing on his experiences, Mr. Baker examines the technologies we love–jet travel, computer networks, and biotech–and finds that they are likely to empower new forms of terrorism unless the United States changes its current course a few degrees and overcome resistance to change from business, foreign governments, and privacy advocates.
For those not in the know, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has an excellent article on the impacts of CALEA.
Steptoe and Johnson, Baker's firm, also apparently has a thriving practice defending corporations against whistleblower suits under the False Claims Act.
Baker gives further insight into his personal views in an interview to Corporate Counsel:
His first words:
"You know, I’m a bit of a privacy skeptic."
On the FISA Court (yes, the
secret court that approves 99% of all wiretapping requests):
I'm not a fan of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I think the real worry, and we've seen it in the past, is that the judges tend to second-guess the intelligence community more and more arbitrarily, and the real threat is that they will interfere with our ability to gather intelligence that we need.
On what the government strategy should be (bonus Al-Qaeda reference included):
Then they need to explain in very clear terms why the things that they do are important for national security, why you can't simply explain everything we do and expect it to keep working. Maybe the American people will be better informed, but so will al-Qaeda.
On the illegality of NSA overreach (which a Federal Judge just agreed was likely to be found unconstitutional):
There's really no serious argument in my view that the activities are a violation of the statutes of the United States, and a weak argument at best that there's been a constitutional violation.
In short, we have a true defender of the establishment and representative of defense and security industries. I love when papers like the New York Times give them a context-free platform to smear.