Q & A: Edward Snowden speaks to Peter Maass
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
He wrote a bunch of articles in the '90s as well, but doesn't seem to have them on his site. However his reporting on the Bosnian War was collected into a book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679763899/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...
Most relevant here, he wrote an article in mid-June criticizing the focus on Snowden and Assange as personalities: http://www.petermaass.com/articles/we_steal_secrets_misses_t...
Not only the news people. My country's politicians as well. They didin't even change the standard code for voicemail, exposing all their messages to anyone with their number. For any whistleblower trust is the key. Even if you can trust the journalist/politician, you need to know if they know how to guard their communication. (Edit: typo's)
One U.S. Congressman, Pete Olson (R-TX-22), does have a CS degree, from Rice. He later studied law.
Engineers and physicists are slightly more common, though only slightly. And one Congressman, Jerry McNerney (D-CA-9), has a PhD in mathematics.
These two things are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, most tech people distrust politicians and would never enter politics. Likewise, most politicians have no desire to learn about technology, or delve deep into things like cryptology and how to make technology secure from prying eyes.
FYI - the majority of representatives in the US Congress are attorneys:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/did-you-know-this-abou...
"168 Representatives and 57 Senators have a law degree. Of these, five (Representative and two Senators) also hold a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree."
Also keep in mind most of the people in congress are also from the baby boomer generation. They grew up long before the internet even happened. I've been told by a few friends most don't even use smartphones and barely use email. Maybe in another ten years this will start to change, but for now, don't expect too many computer science majors to enter politics.
He now sits in parliament. Unfortunately, he had a bad car accident a few months ago and he's still recovering.
I suspect the most likely approach is a open collaboration and funding from say Brazil or Uruguay or Japan. Folks whose governments are being listened to but not getting the juice afterwards.
- http://blog.mikadosoftware.com/2013/08/12/nsa-prism-some-imp...
Heck, they would get very good notice of any impending war too.
Obviously, the interview was done over encrypted email, so he had the opportunity to choose his words carefully, but even so.
During the interview his father did with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, he also impressed me with his speaking ability, even under a high-pressure situation like that.
There's probably enough trust between them now that he isn't going to get upset if a hash of his email doesn't match a hash of her quote of him. She's also likely smart enough to realize that he could drop her at any time and the other news organizations would be lined to up for exclusive access. So she's going to act responsibly towards her source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno...
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...
One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/08/18/magazine/18po...
A King-Kong level MEH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President...
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
and now distracts everybody that his goal is to "protect the security." In 2006 he called G.W. Bush on the same ground!
Even the "secret" FISA court, the only court in charge of NSA, decided (in the decision that is still classified as "secret") that what NSA does is unconstitutional.
The President still does the distraction of the public with "protect the security." Don't let this remain unnoticed.
We shouldn't be distracted by a human interest story.
Of course, completely agree.
> We shouldn't be distracted by a human interest story.
But there is a value in looking at people and using stories and those people's outlooks as our own role models for the future.
What is being done to Snowden should trigger as much outrage, coverage, and action as what is being done to the rest of us through the NSA's spying.
Ouch — poor choice of words. He indirectly classified himself as a spy. The media will be all over this. He needs to be more careful with his language.
Weird.
E.S.: Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically avoid contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything was a surprise. Had I intended to skulk away anonymously, I think it would have been far harder to work with Laura, but we all knew what was at stake. The weight of the situation actually made it easier to focus on what was in the public interest rather than our own. I think we all knew there was no going back once she turned that camera on, and the ultimate outcome would be decided by the world."
He intended to "skulk away anonymously". Then the journalists get involved, and it seems that it was too late for that. This seems to imply the journalists had something to do with that.
I don't know how to stop this sound like and accusation or judgement, which its not supposed to be, and generally speaking Im a Guardian supporter, but I get the feeling that he was led in much deeper than he wanted by these journalists. May be he was pushed? Maybe he decided? I don't know.
Yes, it hard to get off a moving train, as it were. But I wonder if there was as much coercion as there was motivation on his part. I wonder how much control he had once the journalists got involved. Or maybe that is normal for things like this.
I'd love to know a lot more about how this worked in general.
Now, why cant I see an edit (or delete) link to correct my mistake? Having realized I made that mistake, and that there for my comments are completely pointless and wrong, I want to edit in a note to acknowledge the fact. But I cant.