Schneier on Security

Skeptical • May 2, 2014 8:53 PM

Thought experiment:

Try to imagine a recently retired head of Russian signals intelligence submitting to an interview like that.

Okay, now try to imagine a Russian immigrant feeling secure enough to host an interview like that.

The West has lots to work on, but it’s okay to occasionally glance around and realize that, warts and all, the system isn’t all that terrible.

I thought Alexander played gamely along as the straight man, but Oliver seemed strained at points to get to the joke. A few moments were quite funny though, including the point Nick mentioned.

Incidentally, while I found Oliver’s twist on the point to be quite humorous, Alexander seems convinced himself that Snowden likely doesn’t realize the extent of the damage he’s done. It would indeed be poetic if Snowden could face the damage he has done (of course there is an obvious pushback available to Snowden).

@Benni: I’d be cautious in how you interpret terms like “information superiority.” Depending on context, that may have a much narrower meaning than you think. And context is often missing in these documents (making careful journalism all the more important, and there have been outstanding exemplars of such journalism in the Snowden docs reporting, but I’ve occasionally seen some sloppy work there as well).

Skeptical • May 5, 2014 5:34 PM

@Nick P: As usual, your responses were thoughtful. I give my own responses below, but I’d like to start with a remark about whistle-blowing and journalism in general.

Journalists aren’t simply whistle-blowers, which is to say that they are in the business of publishing everything that they think is “newsworthy” and not simply whistle-blowing material. Responsible journalists make exceptions in some circumstances, but in general the question for a journalist is not “does this expose wrongdoing” but rather “is this news”.

So when Snowden handed over vast reams of materials to journalists, he wasn’t doing so with an eye towards the public reporting of only material that reveals wrongdoing.

He was doing so with an eye towards the public reporting of anything newsworthy in those many documents. And newsworthy includes perfectly legitimate operations.

He knew that the standard for publication would not be whistle-blowing, or even the good of the public. He knew that there would be competitive pressures among outlets to push the boundary of what even they considered responsible to publish. He knew that by handing the material to different journalists he would be creating incentives biased towards publication.

A whistle-blower hands over information necessary to reveal wrongdoing. The person who just pumps information into the public domain is doing something quite different. And Snowden’s actions are much closer to the latter than the former.

—“No one has said that, nor do I see any indication that anyone believes that. “Spy on everyone all the time” would mean a bug in every bedroom, and as far as I’m aware no one at the NSA or any other government agency wants to turn the US into North Korea.”

—A logical fallacy as there will always be limits & their existence doesn’t negate my point that the spy agencies want as much info as possible. And that requires as much spying as possible. And they want it stateside.

My point isn’t that there are limits to the amount of information that can be collected, but rather that afaik no one at NSA desires to put in a bug in every bedroom and a wire in every washroom.

—“Give me the box you will allow me to operate in. I’m going to play to the very edges of that box.” (Hayden, former NSA Director)

The full context of that quote is that he was asked by Charlie Rose about whether he would be “comfortable” with whatever decision might be made as to the bounds of NSA operations.

In response, he said yes, that he would play to the limits of the bounds that are set, but no further, and that he and the Intelligence Community recognize the importance and legitimacy of such bounds.

So far from advocating for the erosion of all limits on intelligence gathering, he was explicitly acknowledging the importance and legitimacy of limits in his full remarks.

—“He carried out numerous documents containing the details of targeted operations directed at specific entities abroad, ranging from legitimate foreign intelligence targets like Mr. Putin to legitimate counter-terrorist targets.”

—I wouldn’t support Snowden releasing those without good reason.

But he did expose them when he handed them to journalists around the world. And he’s done so in a manner that seems calculated to tilt heavily towards public reporting.

—It would make sense to grab them as an insurance policy given US’s aggression toward leakers.

If you mean “make sense ethically” (I’m not saying you do), then I can’t agree with this. Part of the responsibility of being a whistle-blower in a democratic society with a legitimate government is facing the possible legal repercussions of one’s actions. That responsibility is a component of one’s integrity as a citizen and as a member of society. Threatening US national security as a means of avoiding those legal repercussions is unethical and dishonorable.

And while I can understand the very normal and very strong human motivation to avoid such repercussions, I have no sympathy for the method he has chosen, which is simply that of a thug. Threatening a nation with the prospect of exposing vital national security secrets to its enemies is no less hostile than threatening a nation with outright force.

—His strategy of just getting rid of the documents entirely (and to many journalists) doesn’t seem like the smartest option for a number of reasons. He might have partnered with responsible journalists, though, like Wikileaks did for their redaction process.

Whistle-blowing in the context we’re talking about entails the public exposure of actions that shock one’s conscience.

In other words, the causal chain should be:

Snowden sees policy that should be exposed to public -> Snowden exposes information revealing such policy.

The causal chain should not be:

Snowden exposes huge amounts of information -> journalists examine that information for “newsworthy” material.

—Yet, without his work, we wouldn’t know about the extent of the subversion and activity. We’d be relying on public statements that say they don’t collect data on Americans unless it’s metadata.

Or it’s incidental collection, or it’s authorized by a court, or it’s in a communication that the NSA is otherwise authorized by law to intercept. All of these things were known prior to any leaks.

That’s not to say the leaks haven’t changed public awareness of various specifics, some important, or that it did not raise the profile of a broader security question regarding our communications.

And they only spy on foreign targets to protect the U.S.

What other purpose has been revealed by the leaks? There’s zero evidence of commercial espionage. In fact the leaks have bolstered reasons for believing that the US does not engage in it.

And it’s mainly to stop terrorism & it’s great at that.

Signals intelligence seems to have been quite effective as a tool in counterterrorism, however.

Snowden’s leaks disproved each claim & there wasn’t anyone else giving us concrete evidence. That means he served the greater good in showing our intelligence agencies were extremely powerful AND systematically deceiving the public. A much greater threat to a democracy than terrorism as Hoover showed.

Corruption in general is a threat to democracy, but we didn’t need to Snowden to be reminded of the need to ensure intelligence agencies are well-monitored and not used for corrupt ends.

As such, I’d either give him immunity or a light prison sentence.

Let’s grant everything you’ve said above as true. Unfortunately for Snowden the following would still remain the case:

He could have exposed what you say he has without doing the massive damage that he has almost certainly done. There was no need to take the number of documents that he did. The compromise of legitimately classified information was not necessary to a whistle-blowing mission. Nor, given the amount of time he had, was this compromise inadvertent, a regrettable accident while rushing to accomplish his good deeds.

Very little of what he has taken seems to reveal illegal or unethical actions or policies (even sticking to the assumption that everything you’ve said is true).

He’s shown no remorse for any part of his actions, and he’s shown no willingness to help mitigate the damage caused by his actions.

Deliberate wrongdoing + massive harm + no remorse + no attempt to mitigate = no leniency

There may be facts not yet revealed that provide reason for leniency. Perhaps he was not the sole actor involved, and was to some degree misled; perhaps he’ll demonstrate remorse for some aspects of what he’s done; perhaps he’ll take steps to mitigate damage. But at present, those factors are not present in the equation.