Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate | Hacker News Reader

Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate

nytimes.com

181 pointsuvdiv74 comments

I think Glenn Greenwald is a damn good writer, I used to read his articles a lot when he was writing for Salon, he really read a lot, has an extensive knowledge of this area and knows how to use all these excerpts and quote extensively to prove his point. Think of a kind of The Daily Show segments but for written articles. As I'm actually busy myself in my work I must say I'm not able to read all his writings since he started working for The Guardian, but I am both happy and worry that this is him that brought this proof to the public knowledge. I hope the US Gov will have the decency to admit it was fair game and not try to retaliate, but I must say based on past outcomes I'm not optimist about that. And this article insisting in calling him a blogger, I don't know their motivations maybe to separate him from real journalists but it makes me sick, typical from NYT though.

Seriously, that's an insult to Glenn Greenwald. The Daily Show is good as far as entertainment goes but Greenwald writes about serious stuff in a very concise and substantive way.

It wouldn't be unprecedented for him to be held in contempt for refusing to reveal a source, but the article doesn't make clear that it is not illegal for a journalist to leak classified information as long as they're not the one who holds the clearance. It is very illegal for someone who holds a clearance to provide that information to a reporter, but if you happen to stumble across it without breaking the law, you can publish it.

Mark Klein, the AT&T engineer who found the NSA wiretaps in the AT&T colo was never prosecuted for this reason. He was just doing his job, sans clearance, and stumbled into the blueprints.

There is a game of chess going on and the NY Times just played an interesting move. It wrote a story that appears to flatter Greenwald but in fact gives the reader the lexicon to dismiss/ignore him.

Clearly if the NYT wanted to be doing investigative journalism to challenge government overreach, it would be.

Yes. Why did the put all those smear (slander) quotes at the end of the article?

Also the bizarre photo in which he looks stressed out.

He is a lawyer that practiced with one of the most prestigous firms in the country and has written several best selling books, including a NY Times bestseller or two. Calling him a blogger is the NYTimes attempt to discredit him to a certain extent in the eyes of their readers.

I'm really glad he did this, took a lot of bravery I'm sure. I almost get the feeling that he's happy to be in the crosshairs of the US government.

They are not even hiding they are going after journalists who expose their crimes now, are they?

If you are trying to send a message, it is best that you are sure the recipients understand it. You cannot be too subtle or you will risk not being understood.

Ask an Al-Jazeera reporter what its like getting into the US. I don't read Al-Jazeera stuff very often, but I've never found anything that didn't seem to be good quality reporting. Yet their reporters are held for hours at the US border and questioned at greater length than actual terror suspects who've gone on to bomb stuff. It's bad.

I've found Al-Jazeera to be the best news network out there. It seems to be only one that's not ridiculously biased and ratings driven.

The bias of Fox News and the NYT are easy for Americans to see, because they both have an slant that impacts US domestic policy. Just because Al Jazeera doesn't have such a slant does not mean it is not biased.

Bingo, they are heavily influenced by Qatar. Influences of which help to promote the Khalifah's view points, some of which are in lock step with american foreign policy... though they play on both sides of the fences just as well as any other nation state.

Their history speaks for itself.

They were originally a branch office of the BBC who decided to go independent when they were closed due to embarrassing the Saudi government. The embarrassment had to do with a documentary about Sharia law executions in that country. The BBC backed down, but the reporters didn't.

I don't care what country's government you are from, would you like to make it easy for reporters like that to get into your country? ;-)

AJ is in an interesting position:

* most news networks in the middle east are state-run (and very obviously oppressive with heavy censorship), however AJ operates distinctly independently

* as such people in the middle east are exposed to news they wouldn't normally be exposed to, for example controversial news stories or other news stories that require strict objectivity

* western news networks are increasingly rebroadcasting AJ footage, most interestingly because AJ acquires exclusive interviews that other news networks aren't privy to

* AJ provides live feeds of their news channel for free online

* they are growing, and have plans to offer[1] Turkish (Turkey), Spanish (Latin American), and Urdu (Pakistani) channels

It's exciting to say the least.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera#Plans

Not being state run does not mean it is not under the influences of the state and the position its leaders take.

"First, it is home to al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news network that has transformed how Arabs get their news. Many give the television channel more credit for spurring on the Arab Spring than Facebook or Twitter. By bringing the revolutions into the homes of every Arab, al-Jazeera drew regional attention to early events in Tunisia and helped boost the number of Egyptians on the streets from the thousands to the hundreds of thousands. Al-Jazeera gives Qatar “soft power” well beyond its size."[0]

Kinda like the history between the CIA and many news organizations that "operate distinctly independently".[1]

[0]: http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mi...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_the_media#Use_of_mass_...

> their reporters are held for hours at the US border and questioned at greater length than actual terror suspects

Citation very sorely needed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/sami-al-hajj-al-jaz...

Oh, wait that's not the one you were looking for; it's much worse; he's being held in a concentration camp; and questioned extensively about his employer...

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/riskingitall/2011/05/201...

Oh wait, no that's an Al-Jazeera story about US Border crossings.

So you're right, five minutes of googling didn't turn up stories about Al-Jazeera reporters being held at US Border crossings or denied entry to the US. So it must not have happened ever!

There's no need to be sarcastic about it.

The comment I replied to says that when Al Jazeera reporters try to get into the US they have been questioned harder than actual terror suspects. Do you actually believe that?

That's perfectly believable. You don't want to tip off a terror suspect that he's under suspicion.

Good point.

If never looked at it this way - its does make sense. However it doesn't explain the treatment of reporters.

I can't cite anything as I went to school with the guy. It's fascinating to talk with him.

Bradley Manning leaks classified information after learning that he was going to get kicked out of the military for being gay. Greenwald publishes this article after basically getting kicked out of the country for being gay. Anyone starting to see a pattern here?

Glenn mentions this and specifically points out that there is a pattern:

> When you grow up gay, you are not part of the system, it forces you to evaluate: ‘Is it me, or is the system bad?’

One has to wonder whether the government considers gays and lesbians high-risk dangerous individuals, and furthermore whether they should establish inclusive policies for gays and lesbians to deter any anti-establishment tendencies (or to establish exclusive policies discouraging or preventing gays and lesbians from holding sensitive government jobs).

> One has to wonder whether the government considers gays and lesbians high-risk dangerous individuals,

It used to be a security clearance risk. The idea that you might be blackmailed with the threat of being outed.

I could see that be an issue with that today too (as would extra marital affairs, gambling debts, etc) but I doubt they would care one way or the other if you weren't in the closet.

Manning leaked information far before his discharge processing had started. Go read his own personal statement he made to the court, it's enlightening if nothing else.

If the U.S. prosecutes Greenwald, then it's time to prepare for a revolution.

Considering NSA and other three letter agencies apparently have quite plenty of surveillance equipment installed, I think your revolution will be met at the door step by two gentlemen in black suits.

1. I never claimed to be a part of any revolution. I'm not.

2. This is a burner account and I'm logged in via tor.

You're not taking into account the invisible, microscopic swarm of nanocameras that have been hovering around you since fifteen years ago, when, aged 12, you posted a comment that now strongly correlates with later activities that are not condoned by the government, especially since the new laws passed 2 years ago.

This thread is ripe for a Slashdot-esque comment:

"I think revolution is the only way for@#�%((((#*;;;";!@

NO CARRIER"

There won't be a revolution unless the US institutes a draft. Anything else will be hated, debated and fought against but it won't go to the level of an actual revolution.

The issue isn't to get everybody or even a majority of the population to act, 10% would be enough. 30 million people marching from all over the country on DC to converge on the lawn of the White House would force the government to give in to their protests; 30 million people is far too many to remove using riot police and even you are prepared to shoot at them do they wouldn't have enough bullets to get them all (or even a significant chunk).

The problem is that you have to get 30 million people to act at the same time, together. I can't see anything but a massive draft that would galvernize that many people around one course.

Like we did for the previous leakers who were targeted? You can't have a revolution when no one is going to take arms up with you. It's smarter to just get out before they close the gates. Are you really willing to die for this when there are nicer places to live?

"The article, which included a link to the order, is expected to attract an investigation from the Justice Department, which has aggressively pursued leakers."

It's doubtful that he will be prosecuted. What's much more likely is that his source will be the target of a hunt and subsequently prosecuted as have other leakers recently

Hahaha! Greenwald would love that...

It's a nice hit piece the NYT whipped up. Do they normally publish biographies of journalists who write leak pieces? No? Only when it's time to smear someone. Here's what the NYT was asking:

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.hk/2013/06/nytsullivan-email-exch...

Is he a weirdo loner biased advocate gay blogger? Just say yes!

Really sad to see the NYT fighting against transparency in government.

Will the US prosecute Greenwald for the leak? No way. If they do that, it will be harder to say anything about free speech or freedom of the press in this country, and that is not the American way.

What is, unfortunately, the American way, is to try to find something else to charge him with (see Assange for example), not only to silence him but also to discredit him. Do not be surprised if allegations of pedophilia or other crimes are made.

Many decades ago my mother's uncle (http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/caughlan_inter...) began to build his private legal practice on defending people from Smith Act prosecutions due to involvement with the Communist Party USA (ironically he never really considered profit much of a motivator for him, and he left a high powered law firm to defend the Community Party), distributing Marxist literature, and the like. Did the government come after him? Yes. With the Smith Act? No. They didn't want to come right out and say "we don't want these people to have good legal representation." Instead they came with a variety of unrelated, and eventually sent him to prison for a year. Unusually he was reinstated to the bar on his release (which is somewhat unusual). (Listening to the interviews with him, I hadn't known he was kicked out of the ACLU for defending civil liberties of Communists.)

The goal wasn't to throw him in prison but to take away his voice. It didn't work with John. He went on to fight, fight, and fight some more, eventually winning significant victories for political freedom in this country. With someone like Greenwald, though I don't know. It does seem to have been fairly effective at discrediting Assange.

I harp a lot on "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" and certainly we are not at the same level the Stalinist USSR was, but I can tell you that it is something that has roots in the US as well.

Assange hasn't been charged with anything by the US.

All the better to say we had nothing to do with it, but given that he was charged during the controversy do you really think that had nothing to do with it?

My mother's uncle, John Caughlan, was charged first with purjury for claiming he was never a member of the Communist Party at an immigration hearing (where he was an attorney, on behalf of, I think Hazel Wolf), and then on various tax technicalities, and so forth until something stuck. He eventually spent a year in jail. The further it is removed from the controversy the better.

That Assange and Greenwald are outside the US makes them easier targets for accusations passed on to foreign police forces.

But, but, he's a rapist! So we should all denounce him.

This is the view now held by most about Assange, sadly.

On the note of Greenwald, it looks like it's already started:

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a national security expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who is often on the opposite ends of issues from Mr. Greenwald, called him, “a highly professional apologist for any kind of anti-Americanism no matter how extreme.”

They'll be calling him a terrorist within the week.

I still stand by it, they will pay someone to make accusations of pedophilia or something. Calling him a terrorist is too close to the controversy. The approach taken to Assange is far more effective.

This time around, I wonder if some "rogue" politician will suggest that a drone should airstrike him.

Still too close. Far better to find something to tarnish his character.

> But, but, he's a rapist! So we should all denounce him.

The U.S. didn't charge him with that.

> On the note of Greenwald, it looks like it's already started:

What's already started? People call their political opponents names all the time.

> The U.S. didn't charge him with that.

Nope, they got Sweden to do it for them.

That sort of claim seems to warrant extraordinary proof. Do you happen to have any?

Are we to understand that Sweden has not charged him? Why then are they trying to extradite him?

Do you know Sweden? I cannot believe that to be true. We are not talking about Iraq or GB, but a strong European democracy, with no extraordinary ties to the US.

Sure, the victims might be lying. But I would trust a Swedish court to decide on that any day.

I am wondering how hard it would be for the CIA to pay someone to make an accusation? It need not involve a conspiracy between governments. You pay someone to make an accusation, press charges or find some other way of applying pressure and let the other government respond to it.

Look at who you'd have to have on board for something like this:

Do you need the prosecutor on board? Not if he thinks the allegations are true.

Do you need the Swedish government on board? Not if they believe the allegations might be true.

Do you need the alleged victim on board? Yes. This is the only one you really need on board to do such a thing.

Are we talking about the same Sweden which had lax laws on copyright but upon pressure from the United States (including threats of trade sanctions) ended up arresting The Pirate Bay founders?

Sorry, but that statement about Greenwald is basically true. People are multi-faceted, and Greenwald is by no means perfect. IMHO, he says a lot of extremely stupid, barely defensible things. It doesn't take away from the work he's done exposing the NSA spying. But his success there doesn't make him a saint either.

What are some of the barely defensible things he's argued for?

Sam Harris has impugned his character on twitter and his blog.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2

I don't see how that's really relevant to literally anything.

The crux of Greenwald's response:

"Given that I had never written about Sam Harris, I found it odd that I had become the symbol of Harris-bashing for some of his faithful followers. Tweeting a link to an Al Jazeera column about Harris and saying I find one of his quotes revealing does not make me responsible for every claim in that column...That said, what I did say in my emails with Harris - and what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harr...

edit: by not relevant, I mean that Sam Harris's opinion of Greenwald doesn't mean that Greenwald has indefensible opinions.

More to the point of your response to; "Greenwald is by no means perfect."

I agree that he is by no means perfect and can hold views that can be seen as the parent's point.

I was asking for clarification on Greenwald's "barely defensible" positions. Sam Harris's gripe with him isn't really about that.

Not yet. But numerous news articles suggest that the US Government has a sealed indictment all ready to go as soon as they can kidnap him.

I highly doubt anything will happen to Greenwald. He's too high profile, and this case is too high profile. They got away with prosecuting leakers because they were obscure.

Few things were higher profile than WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, and they certainly took away his voice. Now he is relegated to being a sideshow -- a novelty to gawk and point at (not unlike a caged beast).

Who is "they"? The vast international conspiracy where the U.S. government pulls the puppet strings of Scandinavian countries? Because if there is anything the Scandinavians are known for, its being puppets of the U.S. right?

The puppet strings you refer to are trade (and other economic development) agreements.

The other Scandinavian countries may not have had such close ties to the US as Sweden, however US-Sweden relations have a rich and storied history[1] stretching back quite far (with particular emphasis on defense against Soviet aggressions).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Sweden_relations

It's not like Sweden is a surveillance state or something

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRA_law

Which cuts in favor of my point: Sweden had its own motivations for prosecuting Assagne.

What do you mean "got away with"? These laws exist to deter leaking, and that only works if people believe they'll be applied. Do you think they're worried about losing votes over this? There's only a handful of congresspeople who are vocally against it, and most of the American people don't care. "It's called protecting America." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-California). Who's there to vote for?

> Do you think they're worried about losing votes over this?

I think they'd like the controversy to die, not stoke it.

They get away with prosecuting leakers because leaking classified information (while often noble) is a crime.

The issue is prosecution of journalists for publishing said info, which is not a crime.

There is considerable debate about this:

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-la...

Apparently, he doesn't live in US but in Brazil(where I'm located, also), the irony is that since he's not in US it's they can probably run PRISM all over his stuff... I mean, he's american so maybe there's some little safeguards, but at this point he's probably already considered an enemy of US or aiding it so this can be bypassed, and even if not, since invading ALL PRIVACY of foreigners, me included, seems to be cool, they can run it through everyone near him and 'accidentally' get what they want, lawls...

Absolutely they will, as they have in other similar cases. They may or may not succeed, but they already have a track record of going after journalists, so I don't see why this should be any different. If they don't push for prosecution, he'll probably have an "accident" at some point in the not too distant future, like has happened to plenty of other whistleblowers, or at the very, very least, they'll turn his name to mud through aspersions and insinuations of sex crimes and so-forth.

Where is Sam Lowry ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com