Even though we probably don't know what level of access the NSA has today, it's likely it will want more tomorrow. This is probably not a situation the tech giants want to be in. So what's the solution?
If any individual Internet company stood up to the NSA and refused access, its CEO would be risking a fate similar to Joseph Nacchio. However, the Snowden leak provides a way for the Internet companies to bring PRISM to public light in a unified way -- where everyone is implicated -- while reducing the blowback risks to each individual company.
In the Snowden interview, he says that the only thing that prevents the NSA from doing something is policy -- not legality.
In the short run, bringing PRISM to light may hurt the tech companies, but it hurts them all equally. However, in the long run, it may be the necessary catalyst to build public demand for policy changes to prevent these type of programs from escalating.
If the tech companies wanted out, this may be the way out.
I agree, the publicity now may be bad, but the focus is mostly on the government anyway. I have no doubt that the companies would prefer transparency and keeping the data to themselves (Google has been pushing for that all along), but perhaps they aren't making it front page like sopa* because want to draw the bad publicity back to themselves.
*except Mozilla I guess, but they weren't targeted in the NSA slides
Mozilla is encrypting user data using a user provided passphrase/PIN as part of Firefox Sync. Personna also has it's own browser-based crypto. Both systems have public specifications.
So classic damage control strategy would dictate something like the following: Make it seem like you've caved to demands, and give up meaningless things (while trumping them up to seem meaningful.)
Releasing a court order to invade the privacy of your citizens is not anywhere near ordering the cessation of privacy invasion.
I have to say: It's a good PR move, and will placate all sorts of people who don't understand what just happened.
"But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?"
Anybody remember the West Wing episode where a reporter wants a story about the President calling a lame-duck session of Congress?
He asks the press secretary "has he considered it", which she knows is a trap -- sooner or later the reporter can escalate it into her asking the President if he's considered it. And as soon as she asks him that, it will be factually true that he will have "considered it", since the thought of that as an option will have been in his mind. At which point the reporter can write the story he wanted to write, saying "the President has considered calling a lame-duck session of Congress..."
Thoughts can be somewhat predictive of future concrete actions, and I may want to take concrete actions in the present that reflect that. This is not to say that we therefore have a right to read the president's mind, just that "meaningless" isn't quite right...
"the NSA does not use that program to keep geolocation data"
How does this mesh with the Verizon court order specifically demanding trunk identifiers for calls, which can be resolved to geographical locations for cell phones?
All lot of the language in this document explains why we've seen the government refer to many domestic activist organizations, no matter how peaceful, as terrorist organizations. By simply adopting the term terrorist to describe any group, the government can at least semantically defend the wiretapping of any individual. Want to wiretap someone? Simply find any single organization they belong to or have belonged too that can be labeled as "terrorist", no matter how tenuous any connection to actual terrorism there is.
The source said even though the NSA may have that power
to collect the geolocation data under the law and the
secret court's rulings, the NSA does not use it.
I think this gets to the heart of the misunderstanding between the administration and the critics of these programs: the administration assures us that they have not and will not abuse the program, whereas most critics argue that abuse will occur (eventually) if such abuse is not actively prevented, rather than merely forbidden by policies.
What the hell is going on. Why is the name of this mysterious "senior administration official" not released? He is completely mirroring the Obama line. It's not like hes blowing the whistle on any secret information and his name needs to be kept in the dark.
This has been a trend all over the press. It is time they realize they are taken for a ride in what is just another completely mundane, coordinated attempt by the government to control the public opinion.
And how is it OK for a "senior administration official" to be leaking reassuring information on the secret surveillance programs and the secret court orders to NPR? Is there going to be an investigation of this leak? Will they tap NPRs phones like they did the Fox and APs reporters in previous leaks?
BTW - At least two senior NPR reporters are married to people working in the White House:
- Ari Shapiro, NPR's White House correspondent, is married to Michael Gottlieb who works in the White House counsel's office.
- Michele Norris, NPR host and special correspondent, is married to Broderick Johnson, who has worked on and off for the Obama campaign since 2007.
More on reporter/administration conflicts in a recent Washington Post article (hilariously in the "Style" section):
In Switzerland we rarely have unattributed statements from the government. It would be considered unethical.
Unlike the US with private news providers most Swiss news (television and radio but not print) are mostly funded by the government with fees like in the UK. Government views are well represented but directly.
I think most Americans would view government-run media with extreme distrust; the fourth estate needs to be independent of the government if it's going to be an effective check on the government's power.
Joseph Nacchio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio) was the only telcom CEO to refuse the NSA's demands for access, and now he is in prison.
Even though we probably don't know what level of access the NSA has today, it's likely it will want more tomorrow. This is probably not a situation the tech giants want to be in. So what's the solution?
If any individual Internet company stood up to the NSA and refused access, its CEO would be risking a fate similar to Joseph Nacchio. However, the Snowden leak provides a way for the Internet companies to bring PRISM to public light in a unified way -- where everyone is implicated -- while reducing the blowback risks to each individual company.
In the Snowden interview, he says that the only thing that prevents the NSA from doing something is policy -- not legality.
In the short run, bringing PRISM to light may hurt the tech companies, but it hurts them all equally. However, in the long run, it may be the necessary catalyst to build public demand for policy changes to prevent these type of programs from escalating.
If the tech companies wanted out, this may be the way out.