The Streisand effect is in full force here. I only knew about this interview because Congressman Pompeo asked conference organizers to rescind their invitation to him on the grounds that Snowden is a "traitor"[0].
I can't watch this right now, but I'm looking forward to seeing it later tonight.
Do you really think his goal was to get them to rescind their invitation? I don't think I'm typically cynical on such matters but I have little doubt that his goal was to get publicity for asking for this invitation to be rescinded. I suspect he got exactly what he wanted here -- go on record against Snowden and get liberals attacking him. That can only help him fend off potential threats in a primary later this year...
If there is one thing I don't understand about this entire issue, it is how partisan politics are actually playing out. Normally I just look at what people in my extended family think, but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is A Big Deal(tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero (presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all for.)
I agree with their conclusions, though I have a different motivation for doing so.
Furthermore, I would say that all or almost all of the pro-NSA viewpoints I have heard from people around me are from not necessarily liberals, but people who buy into the Democratic party line very hard. They seem to have the same basic motivation as my conservative relatives, though different political alignment.
What is the deal with pro-NSA Republicans/conservatives though? I haven't actually met any in person so I haven't been able to grill any. Has anybody else had the opportunity?
>>but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is A Big Deal(tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero (presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all for.)
I'm glad there are republicans/conservatives that are against what NSA is doing because it supports my wild theory[1] about what would happen if things finally reach a boiling point.
I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.
Of course, I'm not happy that Obama publicly defends NSA's behavior. Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(
I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.
I'm sure you're right about the genesis of many NSA programs predating January, 2009, but as a practical matter, President Obama has the absolute authority to stop any of these programs as soon as he would like. It literally is as simple as asking General Alexander to the Oval Office, requesting a list of all current programs with a more or less detailed summary of their goals and methods, then ordering the General to end those programs the President finds unacceptable. Were General Alexander for some bizarre reason to refuse a direct order from his Commander in Chief, he could be fired immediately and his deputy given the same order.
For some reason, some people seem unwilling to accept that we do not live in a parliamentary system: The President has powers that cannot be suspended or absorbed by Congress, no matter how many laws they pass. There are certainly avenues for oversight, as well as budgetary, judicial and other checks on those powers, but the execution of national security policy is up to the guy in the White House. You're not just electing a speech-maker and bill-signer, you're electing an executive. Vote accordingly.
> Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(
If you believe he's doing it because it's what he believes is best for the country, that's the best you can hope for I guess. He's a smart guy, with an appreciation of the Constitution, and a lot more information available to him than the vast majority of people on any issue put before him. Given that he's not up for re-election again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on his motivations in his second term.
That's not to say that I agree with every thing he does, just that I take comfort in knowing that he's relatively unencumbered at this point.
Any president would act thusly. He doesn't think he will abuse the power, and closing down the programs could risk him being blamed for any and all bad guy stuff for the rest of his term.
There is no upside for someone with power to ever give it up, for any reason at all. I'm still trying to figure out Gorbachev.
I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to shutdown.
What one President can create without the involvement of the other two branches of government, his successor has the power to dismantle.
It's not always that easy. Yes, any branch of government -- legislative, executive, or judicial -- has the authority to shut these programs down. But you can rest assured that the first people the NSA spied on were the politicians and judges who might try to stop them.
What happened to Eliot Spitzer didn't involve the NSA specifically, but I'm sure the lesson wasn't lost on anyone.
I presume the pro-NSA Republicans and conservatives think they are taking a principled stand in defense against terrorism, even if it means standing with the Obama administration.
Most of my conservative friends and family (which are, in fact, most of my friends and family, period) are against the NSA not because of Obama, but because they are generally anti-big government and have been the "big brother is watching us" types for decades. They see this as vindication of a lifetime of accusations of paranoia from the Left.
> "Most of my conservative friends and family (which are, in fact, most of my friends and family, period) are against the NSA not because of Obama, but because they are generally anti-big government and have been the "big brother is watching us" types for decades. They see this as vindication of a lifetime of accusations of paranoia from the Left."
This is a good point; I am probably giving my family members too little credit.
Forget the parties. Both sides have statists and anti statists. GOP senators like McCain, graham, are defending Obama on this, while democrats like Wyden, or Udall are aggressively anti nsa.
Feinstein, Pelosi, are super pro-NSA and they represent the most liberal population of the USA (California and San Francisco). Rand Paul who spoke against drones and said "if snowden should go to jail, then Clapper should join him" is from Kentucky. Wyden and Udall are from Oregon and Colorado.
I hate to generalize but it seems politicians from rural states are more pro-snowden, and those from the coast are pro-NSA.
> I hate to generalize but it seems politicians from rural states are more pro-snowden, and those from the coast are pro-NSA.
Good observation.
There are more terrorism targets on the coasts, too. I imagine these politicians have to pander to the "fear factor" of their constituents who are worried they'll get dirty-bombed by a terrorist unless we check under our beds for terrorists every night.
I have some pro-NSA conservatives in the family. I characterize them as being proNSA solely because they are seen as a government "defense" agency. They dislike Snowden solely because he broke the law. They have no concept of civil disobedience, I've made the MLK argument. They also don't fully grasp the severity of what the NSA is doing or it's implications. They also mostly believe what Fox News tells then too. I enjoy debating with them and find that they acknowledge logic, but fail to reason with it on most points.
It is the same paradox as the big military vs small government thinking in the republican party. This particular congressman is a big military republican.
Idealogical consistency isn't really important for either party. I just accept that.
"We need public oversight ... some way for trusted public figures to advocate for us. We need a watchdog that watches Congress, because if we're not informed, we can't consent to these (government) policies."
1. Did he really have the US Constitution as a backdrop? Is he Saul Goodman?
2. It's a shame no-one asked him about his opinions on Russia's recent actions. I know it isn't anything to do with the revelations he exposed, but seeking asylum in Russia makes him part of the broader political game.
>1. Did he really have the US Constitution as a backdrop?
I'm as politically cynical as just about anyone I know. I have no faith in either party. Ron Paul was the only remotely interesting candidate in the primaries, but after he lost I couldn't care less about the Obama vs Romney election. Both are empty suits beholden to the highest bidder. Sure, the parties are great at focusing on polarizing issues like abortion and distribution of wealth, but neither one apparently gives a fuck about reforming the rot at the core (e.g. campaign financing, congress beholden to corporate interest, defense spending, moral hazard post bailouts, cost of college skyrocketing along with student aid keeping pace, etc).
So yes, I'm a doom and gloom kind of guy who sees no clear way out of the mess that the US is in. I'm not patriotic, though I'm still grateful to be a US citizen. I scoffed at the Tea Party's obsession with the US Constitution since I saw very little evidence that they really understood what it's all about. If I saw any politician giving an interview with a US Constitution as the backdrop, I'd roll my eyes and wonder what they were trying to sell me.
BUT, Snowden is the best example that I know of as a person that really values the plan for the US as laid out by the Constitution and who saw first hand an insidious threat to ignoring those principles without the public even being aware. If there's anyone who has earned the right to call himself a true patriot and defender of the Constitution, it's Edward Snowden. So the backdrop may not be such an odd choice given that perspective, IMO.
> BUT, Snowden is the best example that I know of as a person that really values the plan for the US as laid out by the Constitution and who saw first hand an insidious threat to ignoring those principles without the public even being aware. If there's anyone who has earned the right to call himself a true patriot and defender of the Constitution, it's Edward Snowden.
This is naïve at best. At most, he's shown some interest in a tiny portion of the Constitution but his alignment with Russia and his appeal to dictatorships for asylum shows he doesn't value freedom of speech and other values enshrined in the Constitution.
His alignment with Russia consists of being there trying to catch another flight while his passport was revoked by the US administration.
And the appeals for asylum to non-dictatorships (such as most EU countries) fell on deaf ears - nevermind that asylum in "allied" countries probably isn't safe in the first place.
Look at Germany: Every spot within ~150 miles from a US controlled military base or embassy, and known to be used as hub for that extra-legal rendition program (where the German government looked the other way even when the US went after a German citizen).
After the US and UK, such countries are certainly the last place I'd try to hide from the US administration if I had to suspect that they're really eager to get me.
He should also plan his route so that he doesn't cross US-allied airspace - see the grounding of the Bolivian president's plane in Europe over suspicions that Snowden might be a passenger.
With all that, we're not talking about alignment but about a lack of options.
There's a right time and right place to publicly criticize a country's actions, and I think it comes after you no longer depend on that country for political asylum
Yes because he thought his life would be a lot more convinient by realeasing the NSA documents to the world. Generally whistle blowers are seen as having incredibly cushy lives. I too believe that Edward Snowden did it for the fame and fortune that were sure to follow the leak.
I'm sorry if this is overly sarcastic but I do not know what other kind of answer you'd expect. The basis of your question is seems not to be based in reality you might as well ask why the founding fathers didn't believe laws applied to them.
1. Yes
2. I'm here at SX and saw the interview. Chris Sogohian and Ben Wizner were very focused in their questioning and Edward seemed keen to ensure his main points were conveyed. There really wasn't an opportunity to cover current Russian political actions.
It was a very interesting interview. Combined with the Aaron Schwartz documentary and a cross to Assange it's been quite an intense couple of days!
Why do you care what Snowden's feelings regarding the recent commotion are? He might be part of a political "game", but seeking asylum in Russia doesn't make him an expert on their foreign politics any more so than it makes Libyan refugees in Germany experts on Merkel's finance policy.
Regardless of whether it might reveal either a gap between his stance and his hosts or between him and US opinion, it just isn't relevant. Might as well ask him about his stance on drug policy, nuclear energy or GMO food.
The Saul Goodman backdrop, though -- pretty funny as a tongue in cheek reference, I guess, pretty cheesy otherwise.
Yeah, I feel pretty ashamed of the HN community today, and I'm going to take the day off from it today. There were like 10 submissions and none of them were upvoted too much.
In all honesty, it wasn't a great interview and didn't raise any points that most of us here on HN didn't know already. Snowden didn't speak all that much and what he did say wasn't incredibly insightful if you're a technology professional. His main gripe is that secure tools are too hard to use, and real security will need to come from the Googles and Apples of the world, but it's not in their best interest given their reliance on private surveillance for advertising purposes. So basically it was a plea to the next generation of the "next big thing" to think about doing security in a way that actually secures information.
>So basically it was a plea to the next generation of the "next big thing" to think about doing security in a way that actually secures information.
So basically, another entity ready to be co-opted by its aligning self interests with the State?
It's like we never collectively learned anything from the cyhperpunks:
"They think they can always find someone to protect them. No, you can't. You've got to protect yourself."
Society doesn't want to hear that… The same society that wants to elect people to solve their problems time and time again… and you know what? Maybe what society gets is what it deserves time and time again… but it doesn't seem to stop individuals that do achieve what they seek, despite it all, and at the end of the day that's what it always seems to come down to, and the steps snowden took to even conduct the interview (that is intolerable to listen to for the echo) is a prime example.
No; his point was that companies like Google and Facebook will never be truly secure because true security is at odds with their business model. They're advertising companies, so they need to look at your communications to serve you ads. On a private level, that's fine, because you implicitly choose to submit to this surveillance in exchange for the service, and if Google oversteps their bounds, there is legal recourse.
What he was asking for was for the next Google or Facebook, which will likely not be based on an advertising-centric business model, to take privacy seriously and do things in such a way that it can't be turned over to the government en masse. He didn't seem against surveillance as a concept; there is a place for targeted surveillance and he wants to use the technology to force individual surveillance to be the only viable option.
Sure, if one thinks the Facebook's and the Google's (and future ones) only misalignment is with their business model. I think it's more fundamental than that.
What about the formation of any corporation? To whom does the potential corporation submit itself to? And what benefits does it receive upon incorporation even well before any business model can be in sight or capital gained?
Corporations submit to the shareholders. Those shareholders submit to the government, because let's face it: governments have real power in the form of men with guns. Different governments have different rules about how and when those men with guns do things, and yes, that is a conversation that needs to happen in the US.
This was a talk targeted at technologists. All technologists can do is try to make it harder for governments to collect data on the entire population at once by using secure crypto schemes. If they want YOU, they can still get you, because one man vs. a government is never going to end in the man's favor.
All technologists can do is try to make it harder for governments to collect data on the entire population at once by using secure crypto schemes.
I disagree with that statement, because it assumes all technologists pick the state as the enemy, or that they all think mass collection is a problem. I personally see the information asymmetry between who can have access to such information and those who do not as the problem, and one that I am personally working on solving.
And then there's this: look how many people you see advocating for "secure crypto schemes" and how many of them are actively developing them and have been for decades, and wonder about how effective they have been so far for the greater population or even to the population that is still advocating for it. Because I sure do wonder about that…
I can't watch this right now, but I'm looking forward to seeing it later tonight.
[0] http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-sxsw-snowden-speech-has-...