Yes, The NSA Surveillance Story Shows Why Wikileaks And Similar Sites Are Necessary

from the leakers-are-needed dept

With all the attention on NSA surveillance, the Bradley Manning trial has faded a bit into the background (and it already wasn’t getting nearly the coverage it deserved). And yet, this should be a reminder of why sites like Wikileaks are so important. The big revelations over the past week on NSA surveillance both came from internal leaks. And, given the Obama administration’s laser-like focus on punishing anyone who leaks anything marginally embarrassing, it’s not difficult to see just how hard the administration is likely to come down on whistleblower Ed Snowden for leaking this information. And yet, this information is important for the world — and especially Americans — to understand how the government appears to be twisting the law over and over again to expand their ability to spy on everyone.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Yes, The NSA Surveillance Story Shows Why Wikileaks And Similar Sites Are Necessary”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
80 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: thyere ya go

Mike is just trying to make a lot of noise over this minor, unimportant incident.

It’s perfectly normal in a Democracy for a branch of the government to trample the constitution and spy on it’s citizens.

Mike, just bring back the usual chatter about Copyright so that we can have pointless discussions on morality while the USA crumbles into the dark ages.

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: thyere ya go

It’s perfectly normal in a Democracy for a branch of the government to trample the constitution and spy on it’s citizens.

It would be important if they had done it. They have not.

So really, it’s just lots of hot air and top search activity on Google as far as Techdirt is concerned.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: thyere ya go

Perhaps you find discussions of this topic uncomfortable … care to explain why?

Could it be the hypocrisy of parading so called Benghazi whistle-blowers in front of a sympathetic audience asking for consequences for the perceived persecution as opposed to the desire for revenge in this particular case ?

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: thyere ya go

Perhaps you find discussions of this topic uncomfortable … care to explain why?

I don’t find it uncomfortable at all. I was only pointing out that Mike and techdirt are being keyword sluts, desperately trying to drive traffic to the site by repeating the keywords over and over hoping to get a top ranking in Google.

It’s slimy.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: thyere ya go

I think I know what your angle is. Your angle is nothing. Or rather, your angle is to be completely at odds with whatever Mike reports on.
Abuses of the law in the name of copyright? You harp on about Mike even reporting that.
Lawyers shaking down thousands of people using shoddy evidence in an extortion racket? You harp on about Mike even reporting that.
US government is revealed to be conducting massive surveillance on AT LEAST 121 million of its citizens? You harp on about Mike even reporting on that.
President Obama goes on a shooting spree and kills hundreds (fantastical I know, but bare with me)? You would without a doubt harp on about Mike even talking about it.

You’re not criticizing anything being reported. You’re criticizing the fact it is being reported at all. What pray tell is a valid article then? What should Mike talk about? Please oh please tell us at Techdirt what we should be talking about? Do we have your blessing to talk about abuses of the law?

Matthew Cline (profile) says:

Re: Re: thyere ya go

While he appears to be a troll, that doesn’t seem to be his trollish-angle. His angle seems to be:

1) Mike (and the other contributors) don’t give a shit about what they write, they just want to get as many page views as possible.

2) Mike should clearly lay out his political and ethical philosophies, and debate that with commenters.

Anonymous Coward says:

firehose of Information

that US gov agency sucking up the entire world’s communications, how much does it cost to build the required storage, how much money is diverted from urgent infrastructure work, surely the US economy would be better of if the money was spent on roads, bridges, railways, flood control, ports, enviromental cleanups, parks, rivers, space-program. currently as it stands big companies make money by selling services to deal with the info flood, Good Honest people are sent to jail when they reveal acts of the government against the citizens of the country

LivingInNavarre (profile) says:

Re: firehose of Information

Yes, I agree with that but lets first take care of the vets that are fighting, being wounded or dieing so we can be free.
We ask young men and women to risk their lives to fight wars with no cause. Then we take their school benefits away, deny them proper health care, punish them if they have christian or conservative views.
It’s sickening to see money wasted on overbroad spying programs or welfare for people who do not benefit this country.

TaCktiX says:

Re: Re: Re: firehose of Information

Some required reading for the former:
http://gazette.com/pentagons-strange-alliance-with-mikey-weinstein/article/1500225
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/the-pentagon-most-certain_b_3368434.html

Or generally look up the recent furor (late April, early May 2013) about the curtailing of religious freedom, particularly for Christians.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 firehose of Information

So a guy correctly points out how the US military can’t have a painting of a Christian Crusader (ya know, the whole separation of Church and State) in the dining hall for US soldiers to look at…and that’s proof of discrimination against Christians?
Ya know what would be proof? If in applying to be a soldier, one were asked “What religion are you?” and upon answering “Christian”, you were then summarily rejected.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: firehose of Information

@ “LivingInNavarre”: “…first take care of the vets that are fighting, being wounded or dieing so we can be free.” — THE VETS ARE NOT MAKING US FREE, THEY’RE JUST SLAUGHTERING INNOCENTS FOR THE EMPIRE.

You’re spouting the jingoistic crap of those who fall for the worst and simplest lies, that the US in under “existential threat” and must wage war on — someone, doesn’t really matter — a vague “al Qaeda” that’s everywhere and nowhere, easily expanded to “dictators” as in Libya and now Syria, but in reality it’s peoples with brown skins who have oil. The whole Iraq war was knowingly based on fabrications of “WMD” and the sheer lie that the US was going to “liberate” Iraqis from an evil dictator.

Well, HERE’S some of the results of you believing those LIES and unleashing the dogs of war, first an only too typical item that shows how Iraq is FAR worse than ever:
Another Bloody Monday in Iraq: 94 Killed, 289 Wounded
http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2013/06/10/another-bloody-monday-in-iraq-94-killed-289-wounded/

And next, you’d better have a strong stomach for:
What’s delaying the WHO report on Iraqi birth defects?
http://uruknet.com/?p=m98206&hd=&size=1&l=e

Anonymous Coward says:

I certainly hope that there in the USA people are making a lot of noise over this issue.

In my country, the news coverage about this incident was something along the lines of “Some whistle-blower leaked some papers about the NSA spying on Americans. Now, back to Soccer news.”. Two minutes stuffed between Nelson Mandela almost dying and sports news.

The most in-depth news coverage I’ve seen came from BBC World News.

Anyway, back on point: I certainly hope that, for the sake of your freedoms, you Americans don’t let them brush this under the rug. Heads need to roll. You need to make it abundantly clear that you will not tolerate this kind of behaviour from your government.

Or else, you might as well start practising your “Heil Obama” (or Heil whoever comes next…you get the point).

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Same here. There was a short article in one of Ireland’s national papers about the whistle-blower’s name being revealed, but nothing else. Meanwhile, over the past few days, the most memorable front page story I can remember is the fact that Michael Jackson’s daughter attempted suicide. While that is bad in and of itself…one would think that the most powerful country in the world, one lauded as a bastion of freedom and liberty instead being revealed as spying on its citizens would be far more interesting and newsworthy. Nope, instead we get blurbs on the front about a politician wanting the tax-payer to fund his wife’s trips abroad.

The_NSA_Already_Knows_My_Name_Just_Ask_Them says:

Informed Consent

By design, the US people and government get to refine and interprate laws. The consent of the justly governed required in this nation’s constitution, in modern day, means the Informed Consent of the justly governed, the same interpratation we apply to all other consent forms.

Without accurate information, we are denied our designed role in this nation’s governance.

Anonymous Coward says:

it’s funny you should say that considering how much (or little) Wikileaks had to do with any of this.

Makes them look kind of pointless really, right !!!

instead this person when to someone or something THAT MATTER, the print media.

and especially Americans — to understand how the government appears to be twisting the law over and over again to expand their ability to spy on everyone.

except the majority of Americans agree that what the NSA is doing is both necessary and appropriate..

Snowden, he’s simply another traitor, just like Manning, what is worse is neither of them are very bright. Snowden has been (correctly) portrayed as a “low level computer tech who clearly does not understand the appropriate checks and balances, nor the Constitutional correctness of the information he released (or fabricated).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“when to someone”? Do you use one of those speech-to-text programs and bang on the punctuation mark keys on your keyboard for fun, darryl?

Funny how keen you are for governments to spy on people and anyone who disapproves is a traitor. Or does shutting down hundreds of thousands of websites in Australia give you a hard-on down under, you turdtwat?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Here’s a poll [Rasmussen Reports] that says very much the opposite…

?Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race?, by Nate Silver, New York Times: FiveThirtyEight, November 2012

For the second consecutive election ? the same was true in 2010 ? Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney?s performance by about four percentage points, on average.

?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Terrible grammar and sentence structure aside lets think through what you saying.

1) Print media vs Wikileaks
Is it not possible that leakers might have different needs and may not have connections in a well established media outlet (not just print) such as the guardian. The aim is to inform the public.

2) “the majority of Americans agree”
What a load of tosh. There’s been a small survey done on a limited sample and even that was close. Then there’s the fact that no member of the public knows what the NSA are actually doing so they can’t agree with it.

3)Snowden is a “low level computer tech who clearly does not understand the appropriate checks and balances”

I think you’re wrong but lets examine this. If he doesn’t understand the system and he’s been given the privileges he claims, then the NSA is either failing to train it’s staff and/or is not performing the required oversight. Either way that is not an organisation I want having my data.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Basically what the other AC said.

How can you possibly believe that what they’re doing is justified and acceptable if you don’t know what it is that you’re saying is justified?

On the other hand even with the limited knowledge I have I can form the opinion that it’s already too much snooping for too little benefit.

FarSide (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It does apply equally.

But some of us like to use our brains and make a general opinion using decades of govt activities and stories as a basis.

From this we can determine:

a) the govt always finds fun and interesting ways to interpret laws to gain more power

b) sometimes just takes more power and then later changes laws and forgives itself

c) plenty of people don’t want to think for themselves and so will just wait for whatever the govt tells them is going on, with no sense of irony that they were lying to our faces 12 seconds ago but NOW they are telling the truth. For real this time! Guys, seriously! They swear they aren’t crossing their fingers or ANYthing!

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“it’s funny you should say that considering how much (or little) Wikileaks had to do with any of this.”

Wikileaks and SIMILAR SITES. Not just Wikileaks, but other sites focusing on leaked material. God, you guys have admitted to not bothering to read articles, are you now not bothering to even read the HEADLINES?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“despite the fact that WikiLeaks hasn?t been accused of a crime. And viable alternatives have not yet emerged (a splinter group headed by a former WikiLeaks lieutenant tried to set up a competitor called OpenLeaks without much success, and the New Yorker recently launched its own effort called StrongBox).”

but NO “sites” were used, this guy went to the PRINT MEDIA to get ‘his’ word out.

Wikeleaks, is talked about a lot because they released lots of information,

THE INFORMATION DID NOT PROMOTE DEBATE, and has been shown to be mostly useless at best, aiding the enemy at worst.

Quote from ‘Mark’ on Gigaom

“Whatever good it COULD have done was swiftly and thoroughly invalidated by Assange?s bad behavior. What bad thing was exposed from this huge dump of secret stuff stolen by Manning. War sucks? Soldiers are mean to the enemy? Bad people do bad things, and think their uniform justifies it? One ambassador called another ambassador names in a secret cable? Is anything different because of the loss of 300K documents?

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Did not promote debate? Wha…?
Whether or not one believes Manning did the right thing or not in releasing those cables, to then say there was no debate?

OF COURSE THERE WAS DEBATE! That’s why whenever you get a group of US citizens in a room and just mention Manning’s name, some of them will support him, some of them won’t and there will be a DISCUSSION over it!

FarSide (profile) says:

Re: Re:

This is a comment backed by incorrect assumptions.

Glen Greenwald is NOT typical print media. He cut a deal with Salon years ago, which he also cut with the Guardian, to have full editorial control over his columns.

He is able to post directly without an editor. He also gets most of his income not from the paper, but from those readers who choose to support him.

Additionally, Greenwald is one of the leading journalists covering and Assange, Manning, Wikileaks, and anything else related to govt encroachment on liberties.

Whats more, he is EXCEEDINGLY critical of most journalists for playing political games at the expense of getting the truth and exposing corruption.

So to say this was standard print media and unlike wikileaks or that type of website is absurd.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Snowden has been (correctly) portrayed as a “low level computer tech who clearly does not understand the appropriate checks and balances, nor the Constitutional correctness of the information he released (or fabricated).

He’s not alone — almost nobody “understands the appropriate checks and balances” or “the Constitutional correctness”, as none of that has been shown outside of a small group of elites.

And that is the biggest (but not the only) problem with this whole situation. A highly invasive, and on the face of it, unconstitutional program was implemented completely in secret by fiat, and is run completely in secret, and the only justification or explanation we’ve been given is “trust us, because… terrorists!!”

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Forward planning

Uhh…
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1257639/treaty-gives-hong-kong-option-reject-snowden-extradition-us

So…US citizen heavily embarrasses the US government, shows how evil it is, flees to Hong Kong. If I were the Chinese government, I’d give him a fucking palace and a harem as a reward. I simply cannot conceive of the Chinese granting extradition in this case. They would have no reason to, and every reason not to. By keeping Snowden in Hong Kong, they can keep pointing to him and say “Look here, he’s living proof that the US government is just as bad as they say we are”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Forward planning

that’s true, it’s equally true that generally china and Hong Kong will not exercise that, and will happy give up this traitor and leave it up to Americans to deal with him.

Time will tell, but it does not look good for him, that is probably why he’s gone back into hiding.

Hong Kong will not take up that option. Simple as that.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

No story here

I’m guessing there would be no story to tell at all, IF the US gov’t could supply a list of all the terrorist plots this program has revealed (not the ones the FBI instigated).

It’s very difficult to swallow the “We need this to keep you safe” explanation, with zero proof that it is actually keeping anyone safe.

Intercepting all communications to prevent a statistically improbable event seems like a leap of faith.

Anonymous Coward says:

it also shows why the US government will go to any lengths possible to shut up the truth, shut up the whistle blowers, remove as many options for seeing that truth, accuse and imprison as many people as possible (Assange, Manning and Snowden when they get him). in fact, they will do whatever it takes to try to carry on making out that they are the dogs bollocks when, in fact, they are the biggest hypocrites and liars going!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...