Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.
From Snowden's op-ed:
<...>
In fact, Putin's response was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's initial, sweeping denials of the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, before that position was later shown to be both untrue and indefensible.
<...>
So why all the criticism? I expected that some would object to my participation in an annual forum that is largely comprised of softball questions to a leader unaccustomed to being challenged. But to me, the rare opportunity to lift a taboo on discussion of state surveillance before an audience that primarily views state media outweighed that risk. Moreover, I hoped that Putin's answer – whatever it was – would provide opportunities for serious journalists and civil society to push the discussion further.
When this event comes around next year, I hope we'll see more questions on surveillance programs and other controversial policies. But we don't have to wait until then. For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden
In fact, Putin's response was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's initial, sweeping denials of the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, before that position was later shown to be both untrue and indefensible.
<...>
So why all the criticism? I expected that some would object to my participation in an annual forum that is largely comprised of softball questions to a leader unaccustomed to being challenged. But to me, the rare opportunity to lift a taboo on discussion of state surveillance before an audience that primarily views state media outweighed that risk. Moreover, I hoped that Putin's answer – whatever it was – would provide opportunities for serious journalists and civil society to push the discussion further.
When this event comes around next year, I hope we'll see more questions on surveillance programs and other controversial policies. But we don't have to wait until then. For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden
Think about that. The entire tone of the op-ed is that he was doing for Russia what he did for the U.S.; that Putin is no different from Obama; that he (Snowden) was playing the role of Wyden to Putin's role as Clapper.
Snowden is basically trying to create the impression that it's all the same, and his critics are hypocrites for not recognizing the crucial role he's playing is exposing Russia's program, which is similar to the U.S. program.
Of course, it's bullshit. The bullshit started with the question, which was framed to focus on the NSA infrastructure:
“I’d like to ask you a question about mass surveillance of online communications and the bulk collection of private records by intelligence and law enforcement services...I’ve seen little public discussion about Russia’s policies on mass surveillance,” he continued, “so I’d like to ask you: does Russia intercept, store, or analyze, in any way, the communications of millions of individuals? And do you believe that simply increasing the effectiveness of intelligence or law enforcement can justify placing societies, rather than subjects, under surveillance?”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024833461
In so doing, Putin got the opportunity to deny the existence of such an infrastructure, which has nothing to do with Russian surveillance.
In his op-ed, Snowden continues the false equivalencies, disingenously arguing (repeated from above):
When this event comes around next year, I hope we'll see more questions on surveillance programs and other controversial policies. But we don't have to wait until then. For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.
Instead of using the op-ed to expose real details about Russian surveillance, he pushes for exploration of an NSA-like infrastructure in Russia. What utter bullshit. If he actually believes a lame-ass, irrelevant question that elicited a denial from Putin, is going to lead to more questions when Putin's propaganda show "comes around next year," then he's either delusional or completely disingenuous. Hilarious when one considers that he also says, "But we don't have to wait until then." So why didn't he take advantage of the opportunity?
Snowden's op-ed goes on to hype the importance of his question, citing a statement by Andrei Soldatov in a piece that calls him out for being Putin's tool.
In the piece Soldatov basically says: Yeah, Snowden was used, but people are talking about what happened.
The fact is that nothing came out of this charade except a debate about Putin's and Snowden's character. The world already knows about Putin's surveillance programs. Putin's Russian audience will not be engaging in a debate. Even Soldatov admits there is no discussion of this in Russian.
If the goal was to hold Putin accountable, Snowden would have asked a more direct question (which likely couldn't happen in a staged event) mentioning a specific program or incident relevant to Russian surveillance. That would have sparked a debate inside Russia. Snowden would have been willing to As it stands, even Soldatov admits there is no debate in Russian. I could understand why, as a journalist, he would want to use this as an opportunity to spark a debate. A staged event and a lame-ass question isn't going to do it, and neither is Snowden's op-ed, which is just another lame attempt to cover his ass after a humiliating event.
Now, from the piece Snowden links to:
Eli Lake
Sorry, Snowden: Putin Lied to You About His Surveillance State—And Made You a Pawn of It
In a bizarre televised appearance the NSA whistleblower now resident in Russia asked Putin if he spied on his own citizens the way the Americans do on theirs. Putin, predictably, said no.
<...>
President Obama has signaled that he is now willing to end the National Security Agency’s mass collection of the call records exposed by Snowden last year. Neither Galeotti nor Soldatov said the Russians operated a database on that level.
But the FSB has far more power to eavesdrop on Russian and foreign citizens than the FBI or the NSA. In practice, according to Soldatov, the FSB has a back door into every server belonging to Russia’s telecom companies and Internet service provider. Snowden himself exposed a program known as PRISM that provided these so-called back doors to the NSA in the United States. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence last year published court records that showed in some cases the collection of Internet traffic targeted at foreign nationals inadvertently collected the Internet traffic of U.S. citizens for whom the agency had no warrant...Russia, there is no special court or even a parliamentary committee to check the FSB’s work in the first place. “The interception is conducted by the ISP internet provider and not the law enforcement agency in the United States,” Soldatov said. “In Russia interception is conducted by the FSB directly. They have remote access to all Internet service providers and all telecom companies and they don’t have to even ask permission to view any of this data. While the NSA has collected all call records to search themselves, the FSB can actually listen to the content of phone calls without a warrant. Nobody would ask for this warrant because the ISP has no security clearance to see the warrant.”
Russian communications monitoring became even more intrusive earlier this year during the Sochi winter games. It was widely reported at the time that nearly every text, phone call and email was being monitored during the games...“They used Sochi as a test case for a more intrusive system,” Galeotti said. “This was emails, text messages and voice calls. They required telecom providers to store all phone conversations, text messages, everything for 24 hours.”
Putin’s snooping is not limited to his own citizens. As The Daily Beast reported last month the Russian intelligence services are widely believed to be behind a spate of recorded phone conversations of western and Ukrainian officials that have mysteriously surfaced on the Internet and then been reported on by Russian government media like RT, the English language television network directly funded by the Kremlin.
- more -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/sorry-snowden-putin-lied-to-you-about-his-surveillance-state-and-made-you-a-pawn-of-it.html
Sorry, Snowden: Putin Lied to You About His Surveillance State—And Made You a Pawn of It
In a bizarre televised appearance the NSA whistleblower now resident in Russia asked Putin if he spied on his own citizens the way the Americans do on theirs. Putin, predictably, said no.
<...>
President Obama has signaled that he is now willing to end the National Security Agency’s mass collection of the call records exposed by Snowden last year. Neither Galeotti nor Soldatov said the Russians operated a database on that level.
But the FSB has far more power to eavesdrop on Russian and foreign citizens than the FBI or the NSA. In practice, according to Soldatov, the FSB has a back door into every server belonging to Russia’s telecom companies and Internet service provider. Snowden himself exposed a program known as PRISM that provided these so-called back doors to the NSA in the United States. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence last year published court records that showed in some cases the collection of Internet traffic targeted at foreign nationals inadvertently collected the Internet traffic of U.S. citizens for whom the agency had no warrant...Russia, there is no special court or even a parliamentary committee to check the FSB’s work in the first place. “The interception is conducted by the ISP internet provider and not the law enforcement agency in the United States,” Soldatov said. “In Russia interception is conducted by the FSB directly. They have remote access to all Internet service providers and all telecom companies and they don’t have to even ask permission to view any of this data. While the NSA has collected all call records to search themselves, the FSB can actually listen to the content of phone calls without a warrant. Nobody would ask for this warrant because the ISP has no security clearance to see the warrant.”
Russian communications monitoring became even more intrusive earlier this year during the Sochi winter games. It was widely reported at the time that nearly every text, phone call and email was being monitored during the games...“They used Sochi as a test case for a more intrusive system,” Galeotti said. “This was emails, text messages and voice calls. They required telecom providers to store all phone conversations, text messages, everything for 24 hours.”
Putin’s snooping is not limited to his own citizens. As The Daily Beast reported last month the Russian intelligence services are widely believed to be behind a spate of recorded phone conversations of western and Ukrainian officials that have mysteriously surfaced on the Internet and then been reported on by Russian government media like RT, the English language television network directly funded by the Kremlin.
- more -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/sorry-snowden-putin-lied-to-you-about-his-surveillance-state-and-made-you-a-pawn-of-it.html
Snowden basically asked about data collection and ignored actual real-time eavesdropping, Russian spying.
In summary: Putin's show promoted his propaganda to its intended audience, Russians. Snowden's op-ed attempts to spin it to the rest of the world.
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Read the OP. It makes numerous points related to an overall point. Pick one.
"Blue links"
Yeah, that certainly isn't a clue that you're willfully missing the point.
Blue is such a calming color! Why do those "blue links" rile so many up?
Blue
The color of the sky and the ocean, blue is one of the most popular colors. It causes the opposite reaction as red. Peaceful, tranquil blue causes the body to produce calming chemicals, so it is often used in bedrooms. Blue can also be cold and depressing.
Read more: Color Psychology | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/colors1.html#ixzz2zOVC4lfZ
Oh wait, I know...
Blue can also be cold and depressing.
LOL! The facts depress them so.
Thanks PS~
Make stuff up much?
...though this tortured fantasy of yours seems to be the motivating element of the regular Two Minutes of HATE targeted at the guy who just helped win a Pulitzer and exposed the rampant overreach of our governmental security agencies.
(I KNEW that would drive you guys Frockin CRAZY.)
As it is, Snowden has done a HUGE favor to ALL Americans and the World, by pulling back the curtain.
I watch with disgust as you scream, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
....and I wonder To What End.
Will you be as protective of government spying on American Citizens when the Republicans re-take the White House?
*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.
*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.
Thank You Edward Snowden
for the courage it took to Do-the-Right Thing.
Sorry for the interruption.
Now back to the regularly scheduled Two Minutes of HATE for those who are easily distracted:
Big Brother LOVES you,
and only wants what is good for you.
There now.....thats a good little citizen.
All Better?
from Article III, section 3, of the US Constitution:
SECTION. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
This depends on defining China and Russia as "enemies," but they are certainly our rivals, and in the area of cyberwarfare could be classified as enemies. And if we came to blows in Ukraine there would be no question. And thanks to his latest adventure, "aid and comfort" are no longer in dispute.
p.s. hope he likes vodka.
but don't let the facts get in your way of a good Two Minutes of Hate for a mis-perceived Obama critic.
We don't want to fog up those lenses of yours.
Everybody here already KNOWS that there is no line you will not cross,
no ISSUE or Policy on which you will STAND.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218
Most of us here have chosen the Democratic Party because we BELIEVE in the policies and Values of the New Deal and the Great Society.
Others.... well, they really don't have "Issues" or "Policies" or "Lines they will not cross"
They are here just to follow the latest parade.
Good Luck with your endeavor to smear Snowden and protect the NSA and the Unconstitutional Surveillance/Security State.
Your refusal to Take a STAND has placed you on the wrong side of History and Democracy.
I won't be joining you.
[font size=3]CENTRISM!!!
...because it is so EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO![/font]
You will know them by their WORKS.
Everybody here already KNOWS that there is no line you will not cross,
no ISSUE or Policy on which you will STAND.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218
no ISSUE or Policy on which you will STAND.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218
...you're mad because I said Obama wasn't likely to do something he ended up not doing and that, like you, I voted for Obama?
Is there relevance to the OP point here? Is this an attempt to discredit the OP by pointing out that I support and voted for Obama? LOL!
"Good Luck with your endeavor to smear Snowden and protect the NSA and the Unconstitutional Surveillance/Security State. "
LOL!
"Your refusal to Take a STAND has placed you on the wrong side of History and Democracy. "
Oh, I've taken a stand: Reform the NSA and hold Snowden, Putin's tool, accountable for the crimes he has been charged with:
Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.
Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
I'll stand on the "side of history" with the many people who oppose NSA overreach, but who recognize the value of the debate, and who don't approve of Snowden's actions that go beyond sparking a debate about the NSA's domestic activities. In the end, a trial is required to hold him accountable.
I stand with Jimmy Carter:
Carter: Snowden's leaks 'good for Americans to know'
Susan Page
NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."
<...>
Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?
"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."
Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.
"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."
- more -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/
Susan Page
NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."
<...>
Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?
"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."
Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.
"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."
- more -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/
I stand with anyone who recognizes that one doesn't have defend Snowden playing Putin's tool to be on the "right side of history."
Senator Blumenthal: prosecute Snowden, overhaul FISA courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425884
Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908
“What Mr. Snowden did is treason, was high crimes, and there is nothing in what we say that justifies what he did,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News contributor. “Whether or not this panel would have been created anyway, I don’t know, but I don’t think anything that I’ve learned justifies the treasonous acts of Mr. Snowden.”
From the beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.
Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.
His actions since then have only made the situation worse.
Whistleblowers have been making that point, some in subtle ways.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023236549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550
Of course, this is dimissed because they're also critical of the NSA. It's as if some think that you can't be against NSA overreach (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023002358) unless you support Snowden.
What's that line thrown out whenever Greenwald is criticized: Were you against Clarke when he went after Bush? Were you for Scooter Libby when he leaked Plame's identity?
"No, it has nothing to do with Snowden or greenwald. I feel sorry for you. Your life makes me feel sad for you."
You don't know me. You're on the Internets getting a sad because people are criticizing Snowden and Greenwald.
You should see someone about that.
Your obsession is not healthy. You need a psychologist.
Spending enough time for a full time job smearing people and not even being paid for it.
Enjoy your CT.
"Snowden is in no position to expose secret Russian programs neither from an access standpoint nor logically as he is a guest, it is just something to bray about in a nonsense fashion."
...why did he just write an op-ed (speaking of "senseless drivel"
claiming his goal was to hold Putin accountable (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024839623)?
Like I said, the same people who admit that he can't do anything to jeopardize his asylum are the same ones trying to portray the propaganda event as a courageous move.
