themeek

This is part of an ongoing cyberwar between great powers - the largest adversaries to the US being China (mostly smash and grab) and Russia (primarily sophisticated and surgical).

It would be nice if there was some place where we could see the scoreboard to know how effective and how often we hack the Chinese back. Right now it looks like our tax dollars are being spent getting hacked, but the US government has doubled down many times on offensive cyberwar capabilities and now have professional cybersoldier career tracks in the DoD.

What's the assessment?

Wasn't President John Adams the defense lawyer representing the British Soldiers at the Boston Massacre?

Surveillance was used, however, to identify and track the Boston Bombers, leading to death and capture, and parallel construction was used to create an unstoppable court case, leading to imprisonment and death sentencing.

But you are right - these tools are not used merely to detect and stop terrorist activity. It is also used to track and stop ideas, to give leads and to give extremely powerful intelligence to the FBI, CIA, DIA, NCTC, etc whenever it is needed for some purpose. To those in power these capabilities are extremely powerful.

The existence of these powers does not mean that they will be abused on a systematic level - though of course the potential is always there. One danger is that America's fight to remain relevant in a world that may be moving past it, it may turn ever more Fascistic. In this case, these are powers that would be extremely dangerous for the government to have.

But take a step back to think about this. As citizens we are worried about the use of these capabilities to thwart the public. They are so powerful and so complete that we fear being subjects of its application - viscerally.

To the extent that the good will and checks and balances have worked to keep the brunt of these capabilities aimed outside US borders there are people who do fear, and deserve to fear, the wrath of the US government - even those who might otherwise be innocents, bystanders, or casualties of the struggle for power.

My heart goes out to these people stuck in the middle and it beats faster at the thought of being one myself.

The media focused almost exclusively on the domestic case and the PRISM program, leaving both the legal and the illegal surveillance programs focused externally to "new media", bloggers and forum commentators. So it's not really hard to understand that most people overlook the full nature of the Snowden documents.

I'll take this one further and add that selective timing of votes, polls, and application of law are all ways to 'rule by law' but game the system so that the rules have favoritism.

Take the recent Visa application process in the US. Let's pretend - and I'm not so sure we would be pretending - that the Visa process isn't 'random' but is prioritized for political purposes. This is one way that the appearance of fairness can be ridden for the pursuit of interests.

Even prioritizing police cases (parking tickets) to 'subjects of interest' or prior offenders is a skew of justice if these filters are correlated to any significant degree with political outcome or race/creed.

The US will poll citizens in other areas of the world until it is ascertained that the population would vote a certain way - at which point they will call for a vote to be held. This gives the outcome of a vote a sense of legitimacy to those just paying attention to the outcome of the vote - but those who can watch the process of repeated polling alongside influence operations understand just how fine an instrument this can be for deciding political outcomes.

This isn't to say any of this is 'wrong'. There's an undercurrent in the language - that's unfortunate. It's first enough to realize that these things are done and they are done sometimes explicitly with a purpose and other times by accident. Being aware is the first step to deliberation.

Journalists, however, released these documents. Snowden brought a trove of documents because there was no single document that acted as a smoking gun.

If you are upset with the leak of international material you must be upset with Greenwald.

A note here that SNAP at Stanford is funded by NSF grants through DARPA SMISC, which is a research group in the DoD looking to learn how to get better at influencing social media groups online for propaganda.

(Strategic Communication is the DoD term, well one of them, for propaganda)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/darpa-social-ne...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=972cbc8...

This is interesting, and of course geopolitics and strategy factor into the decision to acquire the bomb. It's certain that other nations, were Iran to be nuclear armed would feel the need to escalate (Israel) or would otherwise intensify proxy conflict, etc.

I am certain that sabotage efforts are sustained and a critical part of the US-Israel alliance. Beyond the Stuxnet episode and the subsequent Mossad/CIA assassination the history here is dense.

For countries who want to use nuclear readiness as a strategic deterrent, it does make sense to have a short breakout period but not necessarily be already stockpiled.

It's an interesting proposal. My presumption would be that the ideal scenario for Iran would be what was suggested above: that Iran acquire a stockpile, let other countries know that they have them, but not have them in a truly official capacity. It seems like keeping a short breakout period would be less ideal than having a semi-secret, well protected stockpile.

This is correct under the current interpretation of law.

Can you provide a citation for that? Every study I know on how American people writ large feel about Snowden show conclusively across the country and across party lines that the American people felt that what NSA did was wrong are thankful to Snowden for revealing it.

Well, Israel has nukes but on an official level 'doesn't have nukes' - the Dr. Strangelove analysis isn't fully complete. (It is true that everyone knows that Israel has nukes).

Iran does not have nuclear weapons but they are extremely close to having nuclear weapons. They have the knowledge, the material, etc such that if the sustained cooperation of other nations to sabotage their nuclear operations were to discontinue they would be nuclear capable very quickly. This is probably what the author intended - though it is dishonest to round it up the way he did.

I'm confused by your response. I do not understand the point you are trying to communicate.

This characterization of the Ellsberg case misses its entire context. I'm not sure if you did that purposefully, but perhaps you think there are other reasons why he was acquitted.

I do agree we are off point. Snowden can't argue that his actions were legal or warranted by the Constitution while he's a fugitive. He also can't if he isn't given a fair trial: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9656310

But Eli, we agree. I too am insanely curious to see how this would be handled in court. I don't really have too strong opinions about Snowden himself - mostly I am concerned about the precedent the court case would set up and what it would communicate to other whistleblowers.

What sort of outcome do you want here? Would you like, as a result of the court case:

(A) A precedent whereby whistleblowers who share documents with the press that implicate the government in a scandal widely and bipartisanly disapproved of by the vast majority of American people are forgiven for their crimes on account of public good but where foreign spies who share documents with enemy intelligence can be charged

(B) A precedent whereby whistleblowers who share documents with the press that implicate the government in a scandal widely and bipartisanly disapproved of by the vast majority of American people are treated like foreign spies who share documents with enemy intelligence

[Or maybe you want some other precedent?]

I'm squarely in camp (A). Since law is a man made object, I say we get to making it possible for the legal landscape to allow the first precedent to be possible right away.

But if they don't have to ask, were it to happen, it would be legal.

It's like the recent Smith-Mundt reforms. You no longer have to prevent propaganda from reaching the American public. You just have to not intend for it to reach the American public.

To catch you up on the Snowden leaks the government was collecting a lot more than metadata.

It's also true that Smith v. Maryland is highly controversial. The Third Party Doctrine essentially states that you can't expect technology to provide you technology so long as the technology is bought or served by someone else. Via CALEA and the Stored Information Act, as well as 702 in FISA and a constellation of other legislation (now Freedom Act as well) third parties are forced to keep records on behalf of national security hawks.

In praxis this means that there is no manner by which I can communicate with someone in private anywhere except for in my or their house - and then if I willingly allow a third party product that has a listening device in my house provided by a third party it is the law that I can not expect those conversations to be private either.

Smith v. Maryland was in 1979. The world is a radically different place now that software has eaten the world. It is not a good precedent and akin to citing section 215 the way that NSA did.

Well, you're in the DC area. There's a colored perception there.

My experience (Seattle) is quite different. Also colored.

It is incorrect that foreign propaganda is never sustained.

For example the United States government is currently engaged in a blanket of propaganda covering communications, social media and news outfit over the Middle East - they go so far as to create video games for the children there to play. The goal is a deradicalization of the Middle East - the vast majority of which now have turned against or are deeply suspicious of the United States (even NATO member Turkey).

How episodic propaganda operations are depends on the goal of the propaganda. Sometimes there is a specific ephemeral purpose (e.g. military deception), other times it is a short term goal (e.g. increase trust in gov't bonds) and other times it intends to be permanent or long lasting (e.g. America and Western culture is friendly to you and you would like to be a part of it).

Alas I do not know of a general site where information like this is curated. Cryptome sometimes posts similar information. Wikileaks, too. Following a variety of journalistic outfits with integrity (get to know the individual journalists - do not follow 'brands') helps (I do not feel comfortable sharing my personal list here). Reading reports from Washington Thinktanks, especially in the national defense arena is very helpful as they speak sometimes very plainly about the US strategic purposes of things that otherwise seem very odd. It's also really useful to have the patience to trawl through boring documents for key terminology and to use search engines to be your own poor man's investigative journalist.

There are people who spend 100% of their time focused on any particular country or issue you are interested in. Find professors of foreign policy or cultural studies and security advisors for the country or area. There are similarly task forces that try to provide insight into the whatever issue - many of these are public.

The short answer here is that no, there isn't any easy place. But the great thing is that, if you care enough about it, some reasonable representation of 'what's going on' is available to you.

I don't see how using propaganda would imply that the same information are being sewn multiple places.

Propaganda is merely the focused government effort to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products.

Different audiences are going to require different messaging.

The US's propaganda is quite different than China's propaganda when it comes to the exact physical end product, although the countries are starting to share more and more common tactical forms and procedures.

Of course what the US wants US civilians to think is different than was the US wants China to think is different from what US wants Chinese civilians to think is different from what China wants USG to think is different from what China was US civilians to think.

Propaganda is not a blunt instrument. It has to be and is targeted to specific audiences.

Please see the reference to Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and the associated Supreme Court case where document leaking was protected by whistleblowing. You can also look at the COINTELPRO leaks.

The Espionage Act has been used a total of 8 times, multiple times during the Obama Administration.

(You can disagree but Lavabit had suite that it effectively was not allowed to bring. This is point I made above - Lavabit was trying to mount a legal defense against the destruction of its business in this case; it was not able to.)

Here is a 2009 report in the first session of the 111th Congress on Chinese Propaganda targeting the United States.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/china/09_04_30_infl_ops....

America propagandizes China, China propagandizes America, China propagandizes China and America propagandizes America. Or, if you perfer, each country performs "Influence Operations", "Strategic Communications", "Psychological Operations".

Could you unpack how you mean that voters have basically okayed torture, rendition, indiscriminate drone targeting (or use in general), and mass surveillance?

I don't have time for anything comprehensive, but if you feel like doing your own research look into:

- NGOs and CSOs the US has in China and their support of Civil Society; Civil Society is a comprehensive word that means signon to US standards, expectations, culture, economic norms, etc

- Source code (hosted on GitHub) that supports civil dissidents and websites (greatfirewall) that align with US narrative work that have US support or funding

- DoD MINERVA's study of housing crises in China and the possibility to use home ownership (surveillance of) for prediction or (propaganda of) nudging into unrest

- Broadcasting by the Board of Broadcasting Governors, such as VOA into China

- Anything you can find via FOIA requests from the Bureau of International Information Programs (this was born to take up responsibilities formerly in charge of by the late USIA)

If you want to get hypothetical there are number of suspicious events and coincidences - but these have no definitive link (smoking gun) pointing to the United States so they are excluded here.

It's important to note that NGOs do not mean that they are not related to government or the USG's national security objectives. ZunZuneo for example was set up through a series of NGOs that were ultimately CIA fronts.

In the history of Espionage Act cases - the Espionage Act being a wartime temporary restriction of normal constitutional proceedings that survived past its wartime statute - excludes the possibility of arguing a whistleblower case, which is what Snowden would want in this case to argue.

It's important to note that Snowden did not disclose these documents - he brought them to journalists, who then worked with the USG to coordinate what could be published to the public.

Historical analogies, such as the huge civil rights win in Ellsberg's Times vs. The United States sets a precedence that is not going to stick with Snowden. Ellsberg could not escape the Espionage Act charge but it was dropped by minstrel. This is not going to be a repeat with Snowden - they are going after him with the Espionage Act because they know that it specifically excludes the defense that the leaks were performed in the public interest.

History of National Security laws show how opaque the presumed-to-be transparent process of the court are supposed to be. Take for example the Lavabit case, done without a jury with a secret court summons and with evidence that the state promised the judge was there but could not provide to the defense or public for inspection because... national security. All done with only one or two weeks notice and a gag order that made it nearly impossible to find legal representation.

This was for Snowden's email provider.

Finally, the Virginia court circuit is one filled with lawyers not known for their expertise or lenience in civil rights matters but one with lawyers known for their favoritism of national security.

But overall we've got what we need from Snowden and I don't care so very much for me what he does. When I say he shouldn't come home it's prescriptive advice: meaning I would recommend to him - if I were him - that he find amnesty because of the facts listed above.

Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest.

Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.

The state doesn't think it did anything wrong. All the way up to the president - and don't think the president wasn't aware of these operations - our representatives believe that these capabilities are necessary for the current and future security of the United States (which is, in fact, facing gigantic national security challenges).

The state does not want to give up these programs and it does not think that they are wrong.

Some members of Congress may think otherwise and some lawyers may think so as well. But the top brass even in the DOJ are mostly on board with these programs.

The most the state is willing to do is let Clapper 'retire' from service out of his official capacity and into a role where he can partner with the US government from the private sector and install a new general in his place.

As for Snowden, are there not mechanisms in our court system whereby lenience is given to those in special circumstances - whistleblowing laws being one of them?

I agree 100% that Snowden should face the music. But he doesn't believe he will get a fair trial in the United States and this is likely the case. So he's asking for amnesty.

I think that Snowden should continue asking countries for amnesty until it is clear that the legal circumstance in the United States and the conditions and location of the court he will be charged with (Virginia? Really?) will be a fair one. Mostly this means stronger whistleblower protection laws of the sort the Obama Administration promised but never delivered.

Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.

You are right to point this out. The United States has tried many times to use social media platforms to cause uprising in other nations. These very same nations (including the ones enumerated above) do cut off the services. Take the US installation of ZunZuneo in Cuba and the governments crackdown on personal phones in response - China's ban of Google for US influence and foreign surveillance - Russia's machinations against Facebook for influencing its audience - Kiev's ban of CSOs as Western organization through UNITER was revealed - North Korea's hacking of SONY in response to its partnership with the US State Department and CIA on The Interview - Israel's hatred over Jeremy Bird's participation in "OneVoice" political campaigning over Twitter - etc, etc.

Continuing to use US private companies as soft weapons will increasingly harm the reputations and global standing of these corporations. The military-industrial complex gig is up. Other nations know what's happening. It's merely a matter of denying the company access to a population while making it look not so bad from the PR side.

The decision to pivot to Asia started during the Bush years and through its inception had the backing of a wide number of individuals including Secretary Clinton. The actual discussions being had involve 11 other nations and hundreds of international corporations. The now "Rebalance" to Asia is an Obama term and the TPP negotiating position of the United States is informed by its national security interests to contain China - but it can hardly be called "President Obama's Deal".

This isn't really right. The FBI does perform surveillance, but they aren't in charge of signals collection. The NSA is in charge of these capabilities - and also the protection of the Gov networks.

The FBI also spies, but it is not taking over the NSA's spy role.

They both spy. Neither is decreasing.