Monday, September 23, 2013

Why Snowden was right

When the Edward Snowden story first broke I was of the opinion that many were. None of his leaks seemed to reveal anything that we hadn't learned from other leakers in the last few years. It seemed like Snowden was seeking international fame at the expense of discrediting the U.S. Government. To be fair, a lot of the information that was first leaked was information revealed in the past, perhaps Snowden felt that the public needed to be reminded of the failure of those leaks to affect change. Nonetheless, the leaks increasingly revealed more and more about domestic and overseas spying programs. After I heard Snowden's interview with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald (Guardian, U.S.) in Hong Kong on June 6, 2013 I started to change my mind. I have worked in the intelligence community and I understand that, upon realizing the scope of American misinformation, Snowden felt he had a duty to reveal. It seems many agree that journalists and leakers deserve protection, as The Free Flow of Information Act of 2013 is currently being reviewed in Congress and grants better protections for those with delicate information to publish (and leaves the definition of journalist open for interpretation). While it seems cowardly to run, how else could Snowden continue this work and avoid the black hole of a treason trial? Snowden even took care to avoid leaking certain sensitive information and has not acted like someone trying to bring harm to the people.

Today many see Snowden's leak as a blow to the country's protection and security, and that seems to be the difference in the climate and time between Snowden's leak and the eventual release of the Pentagon Papers. The public's trust lies closer to the government today. We have proof that, after 9/11, there were numerous terrorist attacks prevented. The Pentagon Papers were released at a time when the people were willing to look at lies from the government as dangerous for us all. Journalists were more comfortable and supported in the endeavor to ensure the country was “in the light” and deserved to choose their leaders with this knowledge in hand. Today, many citizens don't understand how a meta-data surveillance program affects them, after all they are not committing any crimes. Many people feel that they are not losing much privacy under some of these surveillance programs; but didn't they deserve to debate that before the programs began?

Some support Snowden because they feel a wrong is being committed by our government; others because they feel a wrong is being committed by our telecommunications companies. Glenn Greenwald, of The Guardian, reported on June 5, “The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.” Should Verizon have filed some sort of lawsuit or even exposed the request to the media? The FISA court threatens the ability of companies to act in the best interest of their customers and dangles the unimaginably serious threat of treason as a punishment. This threat limits the scope of the debate on security and privacy, limiting our free speech.

But it seems there are even more unintended consequences when starting secret spying programs, according to the Guardian on 20 September,

“Many cryptographic systems in use on the internet, it seems, are not "properly implemented", but have been weakened by flaws deliberately introduced by the NSA as part of a decade-long programme to ensure it can read encrypted traffic.”

and

“...it appears to involve getting software companies and internet service providers to insert secret vulnerabilities, or backdoors, into apparently secure systems. This can be done by introducing deliberate errors into software or hardware designs, many of which are developed in collaboration with the NSA; or by recommending the use of security protocols that the NSA knows to be insecure, in its dual role as cryptographic standards-setter and codebreaker.”

This means all of our secure and encrypted Online exchanges are no longer secure. The NSA's secret search for security has resulted not only in a loss of privacy, but also security.

For those interested in the repercussions of losing privacy Online, check out the United Nation's report here.







No comments:

Post a Comment