Schneier on Security

Skeptical • January 10, 2014 8:25 AM

Very interesting story. There are parallels to Snowden, though also some profound differences. This isn’t 1971, there are checks and oversight that exist now which did not exist then, and there actually isn’t any evidence of dirty tricks, blackmail, etc. And in this case, the sheer lack of evidence for those things is very telling.

Latest news on Snowden: according to the Chair and the ranking Democrat of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency has assessed that Snowden took 1.7 million documents, most of which relate to military assets and operations by the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. Associated Press

No word in any articles I’ve seen as to the level of confidence expressed by DIA in its assessment.

It does fit with an exclamation by Greenwald that Snowden could do more damage to the US military in a single minute than has ever before inflicted on it in history, but Greenwald might have only been referring to sensitive documents on NSA operations.

I’ve seen some arguments in the press that the US Government should consider offering Snowden a negotiated plea of guilty which would include a reduced sentence, in exchange for Snowden’s full cooperation in describing what exactly he took and what he did with what he took.

If that’s the strategy being pursued by Snowden, in my opinion it has very little chance of success. The cost of such a precedent is too high.

Snowden has said “mission accomplished.” Okay. In that case, it’s time to tell the US what was taken, and what was done with it, so that what Snowden no doubt views as collateral damage can be minimized. That type of act also buys back some of the legitimacy he lost as a whistleblower by taking so many documents and fleeing to China and Russia.

Most importantly for Snowden, such an act allows the US Government to negotiate while not under the threat of harm to its military. Snowden needs the temperature on this to be dialed down; he needs the US Government to feel domestic political pressure, but not the threat of harm (which will, in the debate about him, always trump arguments for any clemency).

Let me put it another way. If you want the US Government to do something, the very last thing you should do is point a gun at it. At that point you render the US Government deaf to all other arguments for leniency. Snowden has political supporters, some influential, exerting pressure. If he puts the gun down, some of that pressure may be able to have an effect. If he doesn’t… he plays into the hands of those who do not want any compromise.

Snowden needs to be able to regain his whistleblower bona fides with the government, in other words. However much we want to debate that here, he lost them from the government’s view when took huge numbers of documents simply for the damage they could do to the US. Acts which reduce the threat of harm to the government help establish that Snowden’s true motive is public discussion; and by establishing that, Snowden gives himself some shot at leniency.

Frankly, I’m puzzled as to why Snowden hasn’t tried to take this step already. Although establishing secure communications with the US would be extremely difficult, given his current location.

Skeptical • January 12, 2014 5:52 PM

name.withheld, first, I would want to be called on any bullshit. One of the advantages of a discussion involving different viewpoints is that someone may see a point, a perspective, an argument, an unquestioned assumption, that is in one’s cognitive blind-spot.

Second, the oath to defend and support the Constitution, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, comes before any subordinate law, regulation, rule or order. We agree. It is an oath, moreover, not only to the idea of the Constitution, but to its instantiation; by which I mean, an oath to the principles and institutions as described and as actually created, respectively, by the Constitution. In those institutions are included Congress, and the President, and the Courts – and their lawful acts.

Third, while acts of disobedience are sometimes required by one’s moral commitments, those acts of disobedience should be done, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. As he goes on to say, an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

So, that is where I stand with respect to a duty to the Constitution, should one have undertaken a commitment of the sort you describe, and with respect to a duty to civil disobedience.

As to Snowden as hero, I must respectfully and firmly disagree with your friend. Even were Snowden revealing the kinds of abuses we saw under Nixon, he would be no hero, and for the following reason:

Snowden has seen fit to hold hostage the national security of the United States to ensure his own safety. He has judged the life and welfare of Edward Snowden to be worth more than that of the security of his country and of his fellow citizens. I have known some who gave their lives in service of their country, the same country whose security Snowden now threatens in order to purchase himself a feeling of greater safety. In neither sacrifice nor courage does Snowden rank among them. He threatens the same house he claims to help, and such a self-serving compromise, though human and understandable, is not heroic.

Anyone can understand Snowden’s desire to ensure his own safety, and the reality of heroism is not a happy one, so I can understand the effort to avoid that reality. And in all fairness to him, I think he has himself disclaimed such an appellation.

So far as the analysis of the legalities, and institutional framework, of the programs revealed goes, it’s easy for different people to come to different conclusions.

It is difficult to piece together a good picture of institutional and legal reality from documents unless one has the background knowledge to fit them together. It’s a bit like reading a novel. As one encounters a sentence describing a scene, or a bit of dialogue, one’s mind fills in the meaning based on one’s existing beliefs and prior experiences. We do this automatically, for the most part. Where the application of background knowledge to analysis becomes dangerous is where we think we know than we do. The high ranking official reads primary source material, and just knows that it signifies a country has a WMD program; while expert analysts see a different explanation, and are aware of the many assumptions the high ranking official is unconsciously making in coming to his conclusion. The rookie cop sees someone acting nervously while being questioned, and just knows that the subject has something to hide; while a more experienced officer might understand that innocent people become nervous too in the presence of police, and will be aware of the untested assumptions in the rookie’s reasoning.

And when it comes to the analysis of programs like these, we’re talking about complicated laws that draw upon legal principles which may not be obvious to an untrained reader, and systems of oversight as to which political scientists will have validly different interpretations.

So I suppose what I’m saying is that we all need to approach these matters with both humility and skepticism, with an understanding that our first intuitions may not be correct, that our confidence may rest upon invalid assumptions, and that we nearly always have something to learn from those who see things differently than we do.