23 ms·

How the US Government will Smear, Slight Whistleblower Edward Snowden

233 points by geekam 13y ago

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
Isn't this America, land of the piously judgemental? If I wanted to punch the wind out of a whistleblower I would pepper his persona with highly deviant sexual activity.
chrisgd 13y ago
What was interesting was a CNN story about Snowden where the subheadline running throughout the story was that Snowden claimed he made $200k, and his employer(BAH) said it was $125k. Just running that throughout the story lends credence to those who are inclined to think of him as a traitor. "If he would lie about his salary, what else is he lying about" Thats how I interpreted it anyway.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Salaries are tricky things. Maybe BAH was not counting bonus pay. Maybe BAH was giving after-tax numbers. Maybe BAH was not counting things like stock options (or stock?), or subtracting 401k contributions, etc. Unfortunately, most people will not see it this way. Most people will assume that everyone is using common definitions of these words.
kahirsch 13y ago
"It will be alleged that Snowden does not understand the secret programs on which he blew the whistle." Isn't this true, though? It appears that all the information from the internet companies came from court orders for specific information that were reviewed by the companies' lawyers.
- spikels 13y ago
  This particular attack completed by Jeffery Toobin in the New Yorker on Monday 6/10: "What, one wonders, did Snowden think the N.S.A. did? Any marginally attentive citizen, much less N.S.A. employee or contractor, knows that the entire mission of the agency is to intercept electronic communications. Perhaps he thought that the N.S.A. operated only outside the United States; in that case, he hadn’t been paying very close attention." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward...
  - kahirsch 13y ago
    No, Toobin says nothing about Snowden's factually accuracy, which is what I'm talking about. Snowden said "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email." The initial articles from the Washington Post and Guardian implied that the NSA can browse, at will, all data about everyone on the servers of those internet companies. The government says the information requests must be certified to fit the scope of 50 USC Chapter 36[1], then be approved by the FISA courts, then sent to the companies, where their lawyers review the court orders and then specific data is produced in response to the narrow requirements. There's a huge gap between these two stories. I'm not 100% sure that Snowden is wrong, but I'm leaning that way based on what I've learned in the past week. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50-chap36.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE... P.S.: I am also not saying that what the government is doing is Constitutional or moral or even, necessarily, legal. I object in particular to the telephone metadata collection, which is separate from the so-called PRISM data collection.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      The problem with your argument is that the NSA documents themselves describe their system as providing "direct access". And no-one who has seen the unreleased materials has argued that this mischaracterizes the system. It does not seem possible for a system with effective checks and balances to be reasonably described as providing "direct access" to private email correspondence. Which leads to an alarming observation: if we assume there is nothing else happening (MITM interception, access to private keys, etc.) then either the FISA system has been automated to the point it offers no reasonable check against abuses of power, or the NSA is confused about its own capabilities and is fundamentally incompetent. Which interpretation do you prefer given the role, power and relative freedom from democratic oversight entrusted to the organization?
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Just because it's true doesn't mean it isn't a smear /s
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Isn't this true, though? It appears that all the information from the internet companies came from court orders for specific information that were reviewed by the companies' lawyers. The simple truth is, we don't know. And that's basically the point, as I see it. The NSA (and their sister organizations like the CIA, FBI, etc.) operate under cloak of darkness and shadow, and hide behind a veil of secrecy to an extent that makes it all but impossible to have an informed conversation about any of this. And that is, IMO, incompatible with a free, open, democratic society. Regardless of what Snowden knew, or thought he knew, or didn't know, he threw a dash of light on just enough of this secrecy to at least start the conversation and subject it to some real scrutiny. In that regard, no matter what happens next, he has already won. That said, it will be a shame if all this debate doesn't lead to some actual long-term change.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  You've only seen 4 slides of 36 total. People who have seen the entire spreadsheet have stated that there is a lot of technical information (how data is gathered and reconstructed) that has yet to be published.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well until then we have only Occam's Razor to go on, and Occam isn't shining too brightly on Greenwald's version of the PRISM story.
- wyck 13y ago
  Snowden send 41 slides, only 5 have been released. The only 2 people ( Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman) that have the rest have no intention of releasing them.
motters 13y ago
I'm sure that they will also be digging around in his records for anything sexual. They'll probably also claim that he was "a loner" who spent a lot of time browsing Wikileaks, or "conspiracy theory" sites. The emphasis on the salary discrepancy will also be played up as far as possible, to suggest that other aspects of the story might be exaggerated or false. It also might not be too hard to plant something incriminating in his hotel room after he leaves, or to merely claim that something incriminating was found.
- spikels 13y ago
  Leslie Marshall has accussed Snowden's girlfriend of being a stripper in US News and him lying about it: He lied about his girlfriend. He said she was a ballerina, but she was a stripper who pole danced. (And as someone who took ballet as a young girl, I can assure you that there was no pole and we kept our clothes on.) http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/leslie-marshall/2013/06/12/i-trust-edward-snowden-less-than-i-trust-the-nsa-and-the-government http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/leslie-marshall/2013/06/...
  - mbreese 13y ago
    Don't assume that opinion blogs on a website mean that US News reported that his girlfriend was a stripper. It's an opinion piece. People are allowed to be stupid and wrong. So, in the grand scheme of things this fall under - [citation required].
tptacek 13y ago
I enjoy Juan Cole's commentary tremendously, but this particular post uses a sneaky trick (ironically, one he calls out the government for using). Read the list of "tools of propaganda, demonization, and distortion" 1. Snowden will be called a traitor. This is indeed propaganda. (Note though that nobody in the administration has called Snowden a traitor; the false implied equivalence between the random utterances of a Congressman who was elected with ~200,000 votes and an administration led by someone who got ~65,000,000 votes is also a problem, but not the problem I have here). 2. Snowden will be called a defector. Also propaganda. (Also not an administration claim). 3. Questions will be raised about Snowden’s mental balance. Also propaganda. (Also not an administration claim). 4. It will be alleged that Snowden does not understand the secret programs. NOT PROPAGANDA. It is entirely legitimate to challenge Snowden's grasp of what NSA was doing, especially in the wake of his more extravagant claims, such as his apparent belief that he was keystrokes away from the contents of anyone's email, including the President. 5. Government spokesmen will assert without evidence that his allegations are simply untrue. Also propaganda. 6. Charges Snowden did not make will be denied. Also propaganda. 7. It will be alleged that the domestic surveillance is legal. NOT PROPAGANDA. In fact, calling it propaganda does harm to the cause of civil liberties, which needs to engage the fact that a majority of Americans have elected representatives that have made it perilously easy for organizations like NSA and (more worrisome) the FBI to expand domestic surveillance. 8. A small, uncontroversial part of his charges will be admitted Also propaganda. 9. It will be alleged that Snowden has aided terrorists Also propaganda. (Also not an administration claim). Note that this is also the same thing as calling him a "traitor". 10. It will be alleged that what Snowden did was wrong. NOT PROPAGANDA. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's acceptable for someone who swore oaths not to disclose intelligence material should have released that material wholesale to Glenn Greenwald; about whether it's reasonable for one person's judgement to usurp the judgement of an entire elected government; about whether Snowden adequately minimized the material he disclosed to advance his specific justifiable cause, especially in light of the fact that even Greenwald hasn't revealed all the material he got. There is a world of difference between deceptive propaganda and a policy debate. See the trick here? Cole isn't just foreshadowing the tactics that might be used against Snowden, but also using the list to foreclose on legitimate questions (regarding Snowden's competence and the trustworthiness of his claims, about the actual legal status of NSA's programs, and about the legitimacy of wholesale leaking as a strategy for effecting change) by framing them alongside things that clearly are propaganda (like calling people "traitors", saying they're "aiding enemies", &c). (Biases on the table: if I were President, there'd be a universal bacon entitlement program, I'd see Snowden prosecuted for overtly and recklessly breaking the law, but would commute his sentence. I have a much bigger problem with Glenn Greenwald, who I think is just as deceptive as the government, but can't imagine that anything he did should be illegal.)
oroup 13y ago
I think OP skips over a whole class of attacks: * References to his "Pole dancer girlfriend" will be used to suggest poor moral character. [1] [2] * It will be suggested that he's gay. [3] (Interesting contrast to the previous point) * His "inability" to finish high school will be cited as a character flaw. [4][5] I'm sure there will be many others along the same lines. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/lindsay-mills-edward-snowden-girlfriend-blogs-lost_n_3420716.html?ir=Media http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/lindsay-mills-edwar... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339980/Jonathan-Mills-Father-Edward-Snowden-girlfriend-Lindsay-Mills-speak-NSA-leaker.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339980/Jonathan-Mil... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-nsa-is-doing-what-google-does/2013/06/10/fe969612-d1f7-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-nsa-is-... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitar... [5] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/10-things-to-know-about-edward-snowden-92491.html?hp=r2 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/10-things-to-know-abou...
- xxchan 13y ago
  Please quote the what you think is the relevant part from [3]. I can't find any suggestions like that.
  - Kylekramer 13y ago
    My guess is OP is referring to the "cross dressing Little Red Riding Hood" line. Not really seeing the gay insinuation, just a bad joke regarding his tendencies to hide under a red hood while entering passwords.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
teawithcarl 13y ago
Juan Cole is a top American expert on the Middle East (Arabic, Arab Spring, Islam) - very well grounded researcher, speaks Arabic.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  I see, so he has connection to people of Islamic background? Probably had a contact with a terrorist suspect he didn't divulge more information. /sarc
elchief 13y ago
He'll probably start raping now too
- Ygg2 13y ago
  Nah, that's too transparent. I think allegations of misconduct i.e. hacking a university computer is more likely. Or stealing some money from ATM using hacking tools, given his background.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    People fear sex crimes far more than theft or hacking. Eventually it will come out that he is some kind of sexual deviant or sexual predator, and then everyone will forget that he leaked documents and only think about what a menace to society he is.
- mtgx 13y ago
  Maybe they'll find some child pornography on his home/work computers.
- sigzero 13y ago
  Assange can help him there too. Oh wait...
- grecy 13y ago
  Worse... I bet he used drugs.
wyck 13y ago
Swowden has already been smeared as someone who only worked for the NSA for "3 months" and lacks both an education and technical expertise. They are essentially making him look like an amatuer, until more information is released there is no way to tell if this is true.
kghose 13y ago
I predict that Snowden's case will mirror that of several agents/people during the cold war who defected to or openly supported the Soviet Union. The Soviets initially gave them asylum and a platform. But when they started to criticize the Soviets they were removed from the spotlight.
tootie 13y ago
Didn't the White House already confirm most of his accusations are true?
- jff 13y ago
  That would be rather foolish of them, since classified information does not become instantly unclassified upon leakage.

233 points by geekam 13y ago

Isn't this America, land of the piously judgemental? If I wanted to punch the wind out of a whistleblower I would pepper his persona with highly deviant sexual activity.

chrisgd 13y ago

What was interesting was a CNN story about Snowden where the subheadline running throughout the story was that Snowden claimed he made $200k, and his employer(BAH) said it was $125k. Just running that throughout the story lends credence to those who are inclined to think of him as a traitor. "If he would lie about his salary, what else is he lying about" Thats how I interpreted it anyway.

betterunix 13y ago
Salaries are tricky things. Maybe BAH was not counting bonus pay. Maybe BAH was giving after-tax numbers. Maybe BAH was not counting things like stock options (or stock?), or subtracting 401k contributions, etc. Unfortunately, most people will not see it this way. Most people will assume that everyone is using common definitions of these words.

kahirsch 13y ago

"It will be alleged that Snowden does not understand the secret programs on which he blew the whistle." Isn't this true, though? It appears that all the information from the internet companies came from court orders for specific information that were reviewed by the companies' lawyers.

spikels 13y ago
This particular attack completed by Jeffery Toobin in the New Yorker on Monday 6/10: "What, one wonders, did Snowden think the N.S.A. did? Any marginally attentive citizen, much less N.S.A. employee or contractor, knows that the entire mission of the agency is to intercept electronic communications. Perhaps he thought that the N.S.A. operated only outside the United States; in that case, he hadn’t been paying very close attention." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward...
- kahirsch 13y ago
  No, Toobin says nothing about Snowden's factually accuracy, which is what I'm talking about. Snowden said "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email." The initial articles from the Washington Post and Guardian implied that the NSA can browse, at will, all data about everyone on the servers of those internet companies. The government says the information requests must be certified to fit the scope of 50 USC Chapter 36[1], then be approved by the FISA courts, then sent to the companies, where their lawyers review the court orders and then specific data is produced in response to the narrow requirements. There's a huge gap between these two stories. I'm not 100% sure that Snowden is wrong, but I'm leaning that way based on what I've learned in the past week. [1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50-chap36.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE... P.S.: I am also not saying that what the government is doing is Constitutional or moral or even, necessarily, legal. I object in particular to the telephone metadata collection, which is separate from the so-called PRISM data collection.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    The problem with your argument is that the NSA documents themselves describe their system as providing "direct access". And no-one who has seen the unreleased materials has argued that this mischaracterizes the system. It does not seem possible for a system with effective checks and balances to be reasonably described as providing "direct access" to private email correspondence. Which leads to an alarming observation: if we assume there is nothing else happening (MITM interception, access to private keys, etc.) then either the FISA system has been automated to the point it offers no reasonable check against abuses of power, or the NSA is confused about its own capabilities and is fundamentally incompetent. Which interpretation do you prefer given the role, power and relative freedom from democratic oversight entrusted to the organization?
sliverstorm 13y ago
Just because it's true doesn't mean it isn't a smear /s
mindcrime 13y ago
Isn't this true, though? It appears that all the information from the internet companies came from court orders for specific information that were reviewed by the companies' lawyers. The simple truth is, we don't know. And that's basically the point, as I see it. The NSA (and their sister organizations like the CIA, FBI, etc.) operate under cloak of darkness and shadow, and hide behind a veil of secrecy to an extent that makes it all but impossible to have an informed conversation about any of this. And that is, IMO, incompatible with a free, open, democratic society. Regardless of what Snowden knew, or thought he knew, or didn't know, he threw a dash of light on just enough of this secrecy to at least start the conversation and subject it to some real scrutiny. In that regard, no matter what happens next, he has already won. That said, it will be a shame if all this debate doesn't lead to some actual long-term change.
trevelyan 13y ago
You've only seen 4 slides of 36 total. People who have seen the entire spreadsheet have stated that there is a lot of technical information (how data is gathered and reconstructed) that has yet to be published.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well until then we have only Occam's Razor to go on, and Occam isn't shining too brightly on Greenwald's version of the PRISM story.
wyck 13y ago
Snowden send 41 slides, only 5 have been released. The only 2 people ( Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman) that have the rest have no intention of releasing them.

motters 13y ago

I'm sure that they will also be digging around in his records for anything sexual. They'll probably also claim that he was "a loner" who spent a lot of time browsing Wikileaks, or "conspiracy theory" sites. The emphasis on the salary discrepancy will also be played up as far as possible, to suggest that other aspects of the story might be exaggerated or false. It also might not be too hard to plant something incriminating in his hotel room after he leaves, or to merely claim that something incriminating was found.

spikels 13y ago
Leslie Marshall has accussed Snowden's girlfriend of being a stripper in US News and him lying about it: He lied about his girlfriend. He said she was a ballerina, but she was a stripper who pole danced. (And as someone who took ballet as a young girl, I can assure you that there was no pole and we kept our clothes on.) http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/leslie-marshall/2013/06/12/i-trust-edward-snowden-less-than-i-trust-the-nsa-and-the-government http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/leslie-marshall/2013/06/...
- mbreese 13y ago
  Don't assume that opinion blogs on a website mean that US News reported that his girlfriend was a stripper. It's an opinion piece. People are allowed to be stupid and wrong. So, in the grand scheme of things this fall under - [citation required].

tptacek 13y ago

I enjoy Juan Cole's commentary tremendously, but this particular post uses a sneaky trick (ironically, one he calls out the government for using). Read the list of "tools of propaganda, demonization, and distortion" 1. Snowden will be called a traitor. This is indeed propaganda. (Note though that nobody in the administration has called Snowden a traitor; the false implied equivalence between the random utterances of a Congressman who was elected with ~200,000 votes and an administration led by someone who got ~65,000,000 votes is also a problem, but not the problem I have here). 2. Snowden will be called a defector. Also propaganda. (Also not an administration claim). 3. Questions will be raised about Snowden’s mental balance. Also propaganda. (Also not an administration claim). 4. It will be alleged that Snowden does not understand the secret programs. NOT PROPAGANDA. It is entirely legitimate to challenge Snowden's grasp of what NSA was doing, especially in the wake of his more extravagant claims, such as his apparent belief that he was keystrokes away from the contents of anyone's email, including the President. 5. Government spokesmen will assert without evidence that his allegations are simply untrue. Also propaganda. 6. Charges Snowden did not make will be denied. Also propaganda. 7. It will be alleged that the domestic surveillance is legal. NOT PROPAGANDA. In fact, calling it propaganda does harm to the cause of civil liberties, which needs to engage the fact that a majority of Americans have elected representatives that have made it perilously easy for organizations like NSA and (more worrisome) the FBI to expand domestic surveillance. 8. A small, uncontroversial part of his charges will be admitted Also propaganda. 9. It will be alleged that Snowden has aided terrorists Also propaganda. (Also not an administration claim). Note that this is also the same thing as calling him a "traitor". 10. It will be alleged that what Snowden did was wrong. NOT PROPAGANDA. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it's acceptable for someone who swore oaths not to disclose intelligence material should have released that material wholesale to Glenn Greenwald; about whether it's reasonable for one person's judgement to usurp the judgement of an entire elected government; about whether Snowden adequately minimized the material he disclosed to advance his specific justifiable cause, especially in light of the fact that even Greenwald hasn't revealed all the material he got. There is a world of difference between deceptive propaganda and a policy debate. See the trick here? Cole isn't just foreshadowing the tactics that might be used against Snowden, but also using the list to foreclose on legitimate questions (regarding Snowden's competence and the trustworthiness of his claims, about the actual legal status of NSA's programs, and about the legitimacy of wholesale leaking as a strategy for effecting change) by framing them alongside things that clearly are propaganda (like calling people "traitors", saying they're "aiding enemies", &c). (Biases on the table: if I were President, there'd be a universal bacon entitlement program, I'd see Snowden prosecuted for overtly and recklessly breaking the law, but would commute his sentence. I have a much bigger problem with Glenn Greenwald, who I think is just as deceptive as the government, but can't imagine that anything he did should be illegal.)

oroup 13y ago

I think OP skips over a whole class of attacks: * References to his "Pole dancer girlfriend" will be used to suggest poor moral character. [1] [2] * It will be suggested that he's gay. [3] (Interesting contrast to the previous point) * His "inability" to finish high school will be cited as a character flaw. [4][5] I'm sure there will be many others along the same lines. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/lindsay-mills-edward-snowden-girlfriend-blogs-lost_n_3420716.html?ir=Media http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/lindsay-mills-edwar... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339980/Jonathan-Mills-Father-Edward-Snowden-girlfriend-Lindsay-Mills-speak-NSA-leaker.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339980/Jonathan-Mil... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-nsa-is-doing-what-google-does/2013/06/10/fe969612-d1f7-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-nsa-is-... [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitary-leaker.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/opinion/brooks-the-solitar... [5] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/10-things-to-know-about-edward-snowden-92491.html?hp=r2 http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/10-things-to-know-abou...

xxchan 13y ago
Please quote the what you think is the relevant part from [3]. I can't find any suggestions like that.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  My guess is OP is referring to the "cross dressing Little Red Riding Hood" line. Not really seeing the gay insinuation, just a bad joke regarding his tendencies to hide under a red hood while entering passwords.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

teawithcarl 13y ago

Juan Cole is a top American expert on the Middle East (Arabic, Arab Spring, Islam) - very well grounded researcher, speaks Arabic.

Ygg2 13y ago
I see, so he has connection to people of Islamic background? Probably had a contact with a terrorist suspect he didn't divulge more information. /sarc

elchief 13y ago

He'll probably start raping now too

Ygg2 13y ago
Nah, that's too transparent. I think allegations of misconduct i.e. hacking a university computer is more likely. Or stealing some money from ATM using hacking tools, given his background.
- betterunix 13y ago
  People fear sex crimes far more than theft or hacking. Eventually it will come out that he is some kind of sexual deviant or sexual predator, and then everyone will forget that he leaked documents and only think about what a menace to society he is.
mtgx 13y ago
Maybe they'll find some child pornography on his home/work computers.
sigzero 13y ago
Assange can help him there too. Oh wait...
grecy 13y ago
Worse... I bet he used drugs.

wyck 13y ago

Swowden has already been smeared as someone who only worked for the NSA for "3 months" and lacks both an education and technical expertise. They are essentially making him look like an amatuer, until more information is released there is no way to tell if this is true.

kghose 13y ago

I predict that Snowden's case will mirror that of several agents/people during the cold war who defected to or openly supported the Soviet Union. The Soviets initially gave them asylum and a platform. But when they started to criticize the Soviets they were removed from the spotlight.

tootie 13y ago

Didn't the White House already confirm most of his accusations are true?

jff 13y ago
That would be rather foolish of them, since classified information does not become instantly unclassified upon leakage.