11 ms·

Decline of ‘60 Minutes’ Continues With This Week’s NSA Whitewash

331 points by pain_perdu 13y ago

DigitalSea 13y ago
I am one of the few who remember a time when 60 Minutes actually did investigative journalism and not biased propaganda pieces for the likes of the NSA. Now you'll be hard-pressed to find any investigation in a 60 Minutes story, let alone the journalism part. Sad.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  What should they have done differently? I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough.
  - wyclif 13y ago
    How about asking some hard questions instead of tossing softballs? For instance, why wasn't Keith Alexander confronted by the fact that he lied to Congress and the FISA courts? But no, that would have cut into their driveby on Snowden. Did you know that Edward Snowden kicks puppies? &c. I watched the interview and it was a real puff piece. Last week, 60 Minutes doled out advertising to Amazon. This week, they did it for NSA.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      The lying to Congress issues aren't so black and white as I mentioned in another thread. Here is a writeup about Clapper: > There is an added wrinkle here, however, is that it is not clear to me whether Clapper could have given a direct (and truthful) answer in a public hearing, as such an answer would have required him to disclose the existence of a then-classified government program. Even a non-answer or evasion could have revealed the existence of operations the NSA was trying to keep secret. http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-congress/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-co...
      - mrobot 13y ago
        Well, maybe they should have touched on it, then. I wonder why they didn't!
      - lemming 13y ago
        He could have said "I can't comment on that in a public forum".
        growupkids 13y ago
        I think that might where the miscommunication comes in with lay people. Commenting at all would confirm the existence of a classified program. That's the rule everyone is taught when you get read in. You're taught to never divulge. So whereas a case could be made that this program was illegal, the fact that it's classified means it's next to impossible to comment at all about it in a public forum. So, you lie As far as lying to congress, I seem to recall that both parties leaders trotted out to say that all was well, and that this is done to keep us all safe. It's hard to claim anyone was lied to when it seems the intelligence committees and leaders in both houses knew full well what was going on. Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? It's just seems like political convenience for congress to continue that meme, when the intelligence committees seem to have know exactly what was going on. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I suspect the politicians knew and are more than happy to throw anyone else under the bus. Otherwise, if they'd didn't know, then why haven't they done anything?
        mrobot 13y ago
        Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? Doesn't hiding the details of the program protect it from those who would oppose it? Wouldn't some effort be expended there?
        betterunix 13y ago
        "It's hard to claim anyone was lied to" His statements are on the Congressional Record. That means he lied to everyone in the world, since the record is public.
    - vinceguidry 13y ago
      I would've been happy with any treatment of parallel construction. They seemed to avoid that like it was puppy-killing. Which, it probably is as bad.
  - vinhboy 13y ago
    Here is another example. They spent like a good 5 minutes talking about how they hired all these smart kids to work on cryptography, specifically code breaking. Maybe 60 minutes could have simply asked them, "We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication, is that what your code breaking work is for? And why are you doing that?
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      >We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication That isn't a loaded question whatsoever. This response is justifying my statement above. The piece needed to have many 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type questions before the majority of the audience here would be happy with the reporting.
      - vinhboy 13y ago
        How is that a loaded question? It's a statement of fact. 1) They had people working on intercepting Google's private internet, 2) They actively wanted to weaken SSL. For your example: Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife, that would be a very fair question. Not asking that would just be dishonest.
        growupkids 13y ago
        How is saying they're working on code breaking not admitting they are working on breaking internet cryptography? Isn't that the same thing? What other widely used codes could they be working on besides the algorithms used in TLS and SSL. It's seems to me they answered your question on TV. And really, don't we already know they do it, and don't we already know why they do it: because they can, because congress lets them do it, because the president ordered them to do it. If the politicians were truly opposed to this, wouldn't they have shut it down by now? Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!
        philwelch 13y ago
  - logn 13y ago
    I get they had to play softball to get access. However there are ways to still do honest journalism despite this. They could have interviewed anyone outside of the NSA skeptical of their practices and spliced together numerous views. They could have asked hard questions and then shown NSA's refusal to answer them. And this whole piece was very light on facts. I kept expecting a voiceover of the journalist to explain how the NSA's story doesn't match the facts leaked. And there's no historical context of the NSA's dishonesty.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "I get they had to play softball to get access" Maybe they shouldn't bother then. The NSA should not be given a propaganda platform; if they will not answer hard questions, then they should not get a chance to talk at all.
      - cma 13y ago
        Getting an official on the air gets views and sells ads.
  - mrobot 13y ago
    > I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough. Or maybe just something that's not 100% positive.
- lamontcg 13y ago
  this is called "Manufacturing Consent" and its the major purpose that 60 minutes has always served. it is not new.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  Actually, 60 Minutes has quite a checkered past. The first thing that comes to mind is their misrepresentation in the 80s of reports of "unintended acceleration" in Audi 5000s. Their colored journalism almost ruined the company. CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car. ... '60 Minutes,' in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    Sorry to reply to myself, but I just want to append a couple of other ethical lapses on their part: - Softballing Obama and Clinton on Benghazi [1], in which the journalist interviewing about a controversial topic asks mindless questions. - Dan Rather's credulity on GWB National Guard forgeries [2] (leading to firings and eventually Rather's retirement) [1] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minutes-viewers-blast-swoon-journalist-kroft-lovefest-interview-obam http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minut... [2] http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
mrobot 13y ago
Sigh, more about phone records. Phone records! Just metadata collection! Data collection? Oh, right, we do that, too.
- bobbles 13y ago
  It's really disturbing how 'it's just metadata' is one of the lines being used to make the whole NSA debacle sound like not such a big deal, when in reality metadata is what makes this information USEFUL.
- dmazin 13y ago
  Shit, somewhere in there is a point.
  - mrobot 13y ago
    My point was that phone records is often used as a distraction from the rest of the programs, "see look, it's just the outside of a letter!". In reality, two things are wrong: a lot of letters' insides are analyzed as well, and keeping a central database of just the outsides turns out to be a huge privacy violation, anyway.
vinhboy 13y ago
I am really glad people (or at least some) saw right through them. I caught only like 10 minutes of it, but one of the NSA official was talking about how they discovered a state sponsored malware that could infect your BIOS and brick your computer. I was like, wait, what? So you spy on our phone and internet communication so you can protect us from computer viruses? But if you were to view that as a lay person, what the NSA official said about cyber attacks must have sounded really damn scary. After hearing something like that, most people would accept that the NSA's actions are justifiable.
- tbrake 13y ago
  IMO we're past the point of the layperson being so technically hopeless they'd swallow this whole. I grant the numbers are still out there, but I think the people convinced/reassured/calmed by this kind of PR are that way because they genuinely think it's worth it. Maybe even a "better the devil you know" scenario?; it's worth "our guys" having their hands on all of this power, with its potential for abuse, than the "other guys". What I don't get is why, if you're the NSA, would you go through the PR effort for people already on "your side"; you're not going to sway a large swath of the population and there surely can't be that many fence sitters on this issue.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    So their supporters can point to something that appears legitimate when they're trying to "win hearts and minds" of their friends and family.
  - yardie 13y ago
    A college friend of mine that works in DC defended the NSA in a FB comment by saying, "we sort of knew all along they were doing this anyway." So, because they haven't done anything bad that we know of they should continue the course. This is a college educated, engineer grad defending NSA practices. I feel the layperson knows this is wrong but feels mentally, outgunned by all the smart people telling them they are right in doing this.
    - 13y ago
grogenaut 13y ago
Once Rooney died they were all free to stop complaining which does not make for good news. That grumpy old man was protecting our freedoms by protecting our lawn.
rdl 13y ago
Are they this bad in their other current reporting?
- CrazedGeek 13y ago
  Worse, possibly. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364929/behind-60-minutes-bungled-benghazi-report-eliana-johnson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364929/behind-60-minut...
- Shivetya 13y ago
  their love affair with the current administration has basically neutered them.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    So was it a hate affair with Bush that led them to unquestioningly believe something they wanted so hard to be true with the memos?
gjenkin 13y ago
FRONTLINE seems to be the only investigative journalism program of note left on television. Will be interesting to see their report on the NSA, assuming that they're working on one.
- vinhboy 13y ago
  They already did. Even before this whole Snowden business. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/
  - stevenrace 13y ago
    Additionally, the 'Spying on the Homefront' [1] episode in 2007 brought up FISA, domestic wiretaps, AT&T's 'Room 641A' [2], etc. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/ [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews...
  - benmorris 13y ago
    I remember watching this and being shocked! A real eye opener, even after snowden. It shows just how big the spying industry has gotten in the last 10 years.
- josefresco 13y ago
  This. I would have replied here instead of posting a new thread if I saw your post first. Frontline is THE standard for in-depth reporting on TV.
- wnevets 13y ago
  remember to donate to your local PBS station, the last bastion of journalism.
kpapke 13y ago
EDIT Did anybody find that segment about the codebreakers and the Rubik's cube kind of silly? It seemed to send a message to me like, "These guys can solve a damn Rubik's cube okay. Their work is way over your head. Don't ask questions, just trust them."
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  Agreed. The 1:30 solve for a rubix cube is a bunk time too. I think I got mine down to 45 seconds which I referred to as "faster than anyone who can't solve a rubix cube" since it sounds impressive, but most guys who are amazing at it can do it in less than 15.
paul9290 13y ago
60 Minutes pawned by Jeff Bezos and now a paid stooge for the NSA who tried to further discredit Snowden.
atmosx 13y ago
I saw the show here[1]. It's beyond ridiculous. The saddest thing is how stupid they consider average Joe to be. [1] http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-snowden-bad/356174/ http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-... Another question that always puzzles me... Are operating system THAT vulnerable? Every Agency, Criminal, whatever-organization has a remote 0day windows/linux/macosx exploit????
- troels 13y ago
  Some more than others. But I'm pretty sure that the average consumer os is vulnerable to someone with the skills. Even if the os itself isn't, there will typically be hundreds of unaudited programs running under escalated privileges. Any one of those would suffice.
  - noinsight 13y ago
    I think that the situation is hopeless for joe users, if someone wants to own their computer they will. I wouldn't really even trust many IT admins to not get owned if someone actually targets them (instead of the normal random stuff everyone gets). Even if you know what you're doing, in the worst case you just need to browse to the wrong URL to get instantly owned without user interaction. I think it's hopeless for systems that are used in standard "desktop" manner, the attack surface is so large. See for example this: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-fatale-dupes-it-guys-at-us-government-agency/ http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-fatale...
    - ds9 13y ago
      "Even if you know what you're doing, in the worst case you just need to browse to the wrong URL to get instantly owned without user interaction" You'll have to make a better case. In the exploit in your link, the user was tricked by social engineering, had his computer configured to automatically run Java applets from arbitrary sources, and in all probability was running Microsoft Windows - hardly someone practicing good security.
- 13y ago
nexttimer 13y ago
I think the majority of the US public doesn't even need any of that propaganda to hang Snowden in public and continue to put up with corrupt DC.
rl3 13y ago
Unsurprisingly, the words "targeting" and "collecting" were used interchangeably when convenient. In similar fashion, "metadata" was again used as a red herring. All domestic communications within the United States are currently intercepted and stored for at least 5 years, including content. Perhaps that wasn't a desirable talking point.
transfire 13y ago
"The fact is, we're not collecting everybody's email, we're not collecting everybody's phone things, we're not listening to that." Uh... http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ How easy it has become for them to lie.
- computer 13y ago
  The word "collecting" means something different in NSA vocabulary than it does in our vocabulary: to them, it is defined as "specifically looking at". Gather/store and collect are completely different things, to them... It allows for them to make such statements to people who don't know their definition, and later claim they did not lie.
  - cryoshon 13y ago
    I really don't understand why they're allowed to redefine terms like this. Shouldn't the media be calling them out?
    - aclevernickname 13y ago
      Yes. they should. now think real hard about why that might not be happening here.
- uptown 13y ago
  Even the use of the phrase "phone things" could be an attempt at being unspecific-enough to avoid lying. What are "phone things"? They're nothing ... or they're whatever we later describe them to be when confronted with conflicting information. On one of the most critical areas of disclosure - and the statement on it is meaningless.
- KMag 13y ago
  He's telling the truth. His phone is the one untapped phone in the country. His emails are the ones that are not being collected. Therefore, not everyone's phones are being tapped and not everyone's emails are being collected. Q.E.D.
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Who is the target? I mean, seriously. Nazism had Jews. Communism had bourgeois. Who is the enemy of the US Totalitarian Government. Because as we all (well, maybe not all) know from school, the totalitarian Government to exist needs two types of enemies: internal. And external. We know who the external enemies are: so called "terrorists". So this begs the question, who the internal enemy will be. They will probably also be called "terrorists". But will these be "islam fundamentalists" like in the case with external enemy. Or maybe so called "patriots"? Or OWS movements? I have no clue to be honest. Who is the enemy? Which group the propaganda machine will sacrifice to keep the wider populace in check, obedient and scared? Seriously asking because from me this is the only point from understanding if we are in fact dealing with totalitarians already or not yet. I assume this is morphing slowly into a totalitarian state. But who will be sacrificed? Who will be the internal enemy. That puzzle is missing for me. Who will be used to keep us scared? The scenario I think is possible: like with world trade centers, via/nsa/whatever will do some kind of horrible 'terrorist' attack on the US soil. Thousands will be killed. And the whole thing blamed on OWS -- or -- Patriots -- or -- both of these groups at the same time -- and prosecuted without courts in concentration camps a.k.a "Gauntanmo Bay". I know, I know, sounds like sci-fi. Anyone taking bets on that though? Because that's the only part of the puzzle they are missing. And if you ask me, the reason why they selected 'terrorism' as the target is not an incident. That's the only tactics that can be employed successfully against strong, organized total government effectively. Both Polish and French underground soldiers were called terrorists by the Nazis. If you take away democracy from people - at has already happened in the US where whoever we vote into the office will just do the same thing - the only option you leave them is violence. Terror. If you know and understand that - as they USG had known for a long time - your first step will be making them the public enemy #1 even before you start morphing the country into a totalitarian state. Who can be accused of terrorism? Even 82-old nuns are. http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-the-fort-knox-of-uranium-to-expose-lax-security http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-the-f... Why not me for writing the above? The punishment? No right to lawyer, no right to due process, torture, indefinite imprisonment in de facto concentration camp. WAKE UP!
- nisa 13y ago
  > Who is the target? Every other nation. But there are no clear opponents. The struggle is to keep the US economy alive and growing. Industrial espionage. Trade agreements. Deregulation of markets if it is beneficial strong regulation otherwise. Enforcement of policies that are beneficial to US based industries. The war is an economic one.
josefresco 13y ago
Since when did anyone still consider 60 minutes serious journalism? They've long gone the way of "gee-whiz" reporting for the aging (and probably sleeping) baby-boomers. You want hard hitting journalism covering the worse situations around the world? Frontline has you covered.
- VLM 13y ago
  Watch the commercials. They're aimed older than the boomers. Aimed more for the Lawrance Whelk generation than the Beetles. They kept Rooney around because he reminded their average viewer of themselves. Please make a distinction for me that I'm not saying all old people are senile or even that its a good idea for one of our very few media corporations to push the idea that all old people are senile, but I am stating objectively there exists an infotainment news magazine format TV show oriented specifically toward the idea of selling advertising to nursing home viewers and their editorial spin is based on the idea the viewers are senile. They're pretty good at their job, for better or worse. What I mean, is if you don't like it, you're probably not part of the target market. (Also I agree with you, Frontline gives the BBC a serious run for their money)
forgotAgain 13y ago
I think its good to remember that these people are professionals in disinformation and psyops. If we don't understand what they are attempting then it's more likely due to our lack of experience in the area rather then their incompetence. One plausible explanation is it is an effort to give cover to friendly politicians during political campaigns. They can't just leave these people without a story. They need to supply them with something to counter all the negative news. The story doesn't have to be airtight. It just needs to be good enough for the majority of the population to remain accepting of the status quo. As an example of another bit in this campaign I would point to the recent instances of politicians claiming that Snowden must have had help from the Chinese or Russians. No proof was given but he just had to have help because how else could he have done it. It would be good to remember that the first goal of any organization is survival. There is no reason to think that the offensive capabilities of the NSA and the rest of the defense establishment aren't being used to protect themselves.
doki_pen 13y ago
And the first example they use is a "pirate"??!! That justifies a lack of privacy and an ungodly sum of tax money?! :throws up in mouth:
- KMag 13y ago
  Those Somali warlords tap undersea fiber optic cables, intercepting file transfers. Right now, there at least three different safe houses in the outskirts of Mogadishu with several terabyte hard drives rigged to blow up if their demands aren't met. Billions of dollars worth of the world's music is blown up every year by these monsters. Music piracy is a major threat to the US recording industry, and a legitimate target of the NSA.
cafard 13y ago
The notion that 60 Minutes had a position from which to decline is curious.
runjake 13y ago
An easy bite for a real journalist would've been Alexander's statement in the opening segment that NSA does not collect data ("phone calls and emails") on Americans. He then goes on to detail all the safeguards (FISA courts, access controls) to prevent analysts from mis-using this actually-collected "uncollected" data. A real journalist, which Miller isn't, would've been all over that. But if it hadn't been Miller, and it had a real journalist, there would've been no way NSA would've allowed CBS inside any part of the complex. Later in the segment, it is mentioned we share all this data with our FIVE EYES partner countries, where presumably, they don't have safeguards regarding foreign nationals (eg. Americans). Another something a real journalist would've jumped all over. Another little aside: Miller asked Ledgett (the Snwoden task force head and soon-to-be Deputy Director, NSA) how many times he's been interviewed by the media and he replied "One. Now.". He's been interviewed at least a few times before, most recently by the WSJ. A quick Google search pulled up this URL: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579214673029584730 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230460710...
IanDrake 13y ago
CBS is really pumping up the PR for the NSA. Recent episodes of NCIS have a NSA agent on loan to the NCIS staff. She's cute, smart, and quirky and does a great job protecting us all from the scary people. Also, Hawaii 5.0, had a hack attack on an episode lately and they were all "Thank god we have the NSA to protect us". Ok, I forget the details on that one, but I remember rolling my eyes. Now with 60 minutes jumping on board, it's plain to see there's a coordinated effort to spin the NSA in a good light. Not just a whitewash, the message is "The NSA spying on Americans is a good thing".
- smacktoward 13y ago
  This is true. I wonder how much of it is just CBS pandering to its demographic rather than coordinated propaganda, though. The CBS audience skews old (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/from-cbs-advertisers-get-the-older-viewers-they-want http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/from-cbs-adv...), and loves police procedurals, which as a genre unfailingly cheerlead for institutional authorities. (Think how many procedural plotlines turn on the Good Guy Cops lying to or physically threatening someone they've got in an interrogation room, for instance. This is always presented as the Good Guy Cops being smart and savvy, not as an abuse of power.) So if you've got an audience that wants to be told that the authorities are always right, you could decide strictly for business reasons to just give them more of that.
- dlinder 13y ago
  Never mind Person of Interest, where an all-seeing computer helps extralegal lawbending crimefighters save lives...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
siculars 13y ago
NSA and there mass media partners are basically running psyops on Americans. The sad thing is that it will probably work on many of the sheeple and provide ample cover for morning talk shows and op-ed articles ad nauseam.

331 points by pain_perdu 13y ago

I am one of the few who remember a time when 60 Minutes actually did investigative journalism and not biased propaganda pieces for the likes of the NSA. Now you'll be hard-pressed to find any investigation in a 60 Minutes story, let alone the journalism part. Sad.

res0nat0r 13y ago
What should they have done differently? I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough.
- wyclif 13y ago
  How about asking some hard questions instead of tossing softballs? For instance, why wasn't Keith Alexander confronted by the fact that he lied to Congress and the FISA courts? But no, that would have cut into their driveby on Snowden. Did you know that Edward Snowden kicks puppies? &c. I watched the interview and it was a real puff piece. Last week, 60 Minutes doled out advertising to Amazon. This week, they did it for NSA.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    The lying to Congress issues aren't so black and white as I mentioned in another thread. Here is a writeup about Clapper: > There is an added wrinkle here, however, is that it is not clear to me whether Clapper could have given a direct (and truthful) answer in a public hearing, as such an answer would have required him to disclose the existence of a then-classified government program. Even a non-answer or evasion could have revealed the existence of operations the NSA was trying to keep secret. http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-congress/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/11/did-james-clapper-lie-to-co...
    - mrobot 13y ago
      Well, maybe they should have touched on it, then. I wonder why they didn't!
    - lemming 13y ago
      He could have said "I can't comment on that in a public forum".
      - growupkids 13y ago
        I think that might where the miscommunication comes in with lay people. Commenting at all would confirm the existence of a classified program. That's the rule everyone is taught when you get read in. You're taught to never divulge. So whereas a case could be made that this program was illegal, the fact that it's classified means it's next to impossible to comment at all about it in a public forum. So, you lie As far as lying to congress, I seem to recall that both parties leaders trotted out to say that all was well, and that this is done to keep us all safe. It's hard to claim anyone was lied to when it seems the intelligence committees and leaders in both houses knew full well what was going on. Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? It's just seems like political convenience for congress to continue that meme, when the intelligence committees seem to have know exactly what was going on. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I suspect the politicians knew and are more than happy to throw anyone else under the bus. Otherwise, if they'd didn't know, then why haven't they done anything?
        mrobot 13y ago
        Does anyone really believe these highly connected politicians didn't know? Doesn't hiding the details of the program protect it from those who would oppose it? Wouldn't some effort be expended there?
        betterunix 13y ago
        "It's hard to claim anyone was lied to" His statements are on the Congressional Record. That means he lied to everyone in the world, since the record is public.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    I would've been happy with any treatment of parallel construction. They seemed to avoid that like it was puppy-killing. Which, it probably is as bad.
- vinhboy 13y ago
  Here is another example. They spent like a good 5 minutes talking about how they hired all these smart kids to work on cryptography, specifically code breaking. Maybe 60 minutes could have simply asked them, "We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication, is that what your code breaking work is for? And why are you doing that?
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    >We have reports that you are working to undermine secure internet communication That isn't a loaded question whatsoever. This response is justifying my statement above. The piece needed to have many 'When did you stop beating your wife?' type questions before the majority of the audience here would be happy with the reporting.
    - vinhboy 13y ago
      How is that a loaded question? It's a statement of fact. 1) They had people working on intercepting Google's private internet, 2) They actively wanted to weaken SSL. For your example: Yes, if the interviewee was charged with beating his wife, that would be a very fair question. Not asking that would just be dishonest.
      - growupkids 13y ago
        How is saying they're working on code breaking not admitting they are working on breaking internet cryptography? Isn't that the same thing? What other widely used codes could they be working on besides the algorithms used in TLS and SSL. It's seems to me they answered your question on TV. And really, don't we already know they do it, and don't we already know why they do it: because they can, because congress lets them do it, because the president ordered them to do it. If the politicians were truly opposed to this, wouldn't they have shut it down by now? Pay no attention to the politicians behind the curtain: Blame the out of control NSA!
        philwelch 13y ago
- logn 13y ago
  I get they had to play softball to get access. However there are ways to still do honest journalism despite this. They could have interviewed anyone outside of the NSA skeptical of their practices and spliced together numerous views. They could have asked hard questions and then shown NSA's refusal to answer them. And this whole piece was very light on facts. I kept expecting a voiceover of the journalist to explain how the NSA's story doesn't match the facts leaked. And there's no historical context of the NSA's dishonesty.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "I get they had to play softball to get access" Maybe they shouldn't bother then. The NSA should not be given a propaganda platform; if they will not answer hard questions, then they should not get a chance to talk at all.
    - cma 13y ago
      Getting an official on the air gets views and sells ads.
- mrobot 13y ago
  > I think the sentiment here mainly is going to be any report from 60 Minutes that isn't 100% negative about everything the NSA is doing is not going to be good enough. Or maybe just something that's not 100% positive.
lamontcg 13y ago
this is called "Manufacturing Consent" and its the major purpose that 60 minutes has always served. it is not new.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
Actually, 60 Minutes has quite a checkered past. The first thing that comes to mind is their misrepresentation in the 80s of reports of "unintended acceleration" in Audi 5000s. Their colored journalism almost ruined the company. CBS's "60 Minutes" ran a devastating expose of the Audi 5000. Audi customers fled. Lawyers cashed in. The American public was saved, yet again, from the perils of technology gone awry. Only one little noticed footnote remains at the end: There was nothing wrong with the car. ... '60 Minutes,' in one of journalism's most shameful hours, gave air time in November 1986 to a selfstyled expert who drilled a hole in an Audi transmission and pumped in air at high pressure. Viewers didn't see the drill or the pump—just the doctored car blasting off like a rocket. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  Sorry to reply to myself, but I just want to append a couple of other ethical lapses on their part: - Softballing Obama and Clinton on Benghazi [1], in which the journalist interviewing about a controversial topic asks mindless questions. - Dan Rather's credulity on GWB National Guard forgeries [2] (leading to firings and eventually Rather's retirement) [1] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minutes-viewers-blast-swoon-journalist-kroft-lovefest-interview-obam http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/01/28/60-minut... [2] http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit http://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/dan-rathers-forgery-fit
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

mrobot 13y ago

Sigh, more about phone records. Phone records! Just metadata collection! Data collection? Oh, right, we do that, too.

bobbles 13y ago
It's really disturbing how 'it's just metadata' is one of the lines being used to make the whole NSA debacle sound like not such a big deal, when in reality metadata is what makes this information USEFUL.
dmazin 13y ago
Shit, somewhere in there is a point.
- mrobot 13y ago
  My point was that phone records is often used as a distraction from the rest of the programs, "see look, it's just the outside of a letter!". In reality, two things are wrong: a lot of letters' insides are analyzed as well, and keeping a central database of just the outsides turns out to be a huge privacy violation, anyway.

vinhboy 13y ago

I am really glad people (or at least some) saw right through them. I caught only like 10 minutes of it, but one of the NSA official was talking about how they discovered a state sponsored malware that could infect your BIOS and brick your computer. I was like, wait, what? So you spy on our phone and internet communication so you can protect us from computer viruses? But if you were to view that as a lay person, what the NSA official said about cyber attacks must have sounded really damn scary. After hearing something like that, most people would accept that the NSA's actions are justifiable.

tbrake 13y ago
IMO we're past the point of the layperson being so technically hopeless they'd swallow this whole. I grant the numbers are still out there, but I think the people convinced/reassured/calmed by this kind of PR are that way because they genuinely think it's worth it. Maybe even a "better the devil you know" scenario?; it's worth "our guys" having their hands on all of this power, with its potential for abuse, than the "other guys". What I don't get is why, if you're the NSA, would you go through the PR effort for people already on "your side"; you're not going to sway a large swath of the population and there surely can't be that many fence sitters on this issue.
- busterarm 13y ago
  So their supporters can point to something that appears legitimate when they're trying to "win hearts and minds" of their friends and family.
- yardie 13y ago
  A college friend of mine that works in DC defended the NSA in a FB comment by saying, "we sort of knew all along they were doing this anyway." So, because they haven't done anything bad that we know of they should continue the course. This is a college educated, engineer grad defending NSA practices. I feel the layperson knows this is wrong but feels mentally, outgunned by all the smart people telling them they are right in doing this.
  - 13y ago

grogenaut 13y ago

Once Rooney died they were all free to stop complaining which does not make for good news. That grumpy old man was protecting our freedoms by protecting our lawn.

rdl 13y ago

Are they this bad in their other current reporting?

CrazedGeek 13y ago
Worse, possibly. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364929/behind-60-minutes-bungled-benghazi-report-eliana-johnson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364929/behind-60-minut...
Shivetya 13y ago
their love affair with the current administration has basically neutered them.
- danielweber 13y ago
  So was it a hate affair with Bush that led them to unquestioningly believe something they wanted so hard to be true with the memos?

gjenkin 13y ago

FRONTLINE seems to be the only investigative journalism program of note left on television. Will be interesting to see their report on the NSA, assuming that they're working on one.

vinhboy 13y ago
They already did. Even before this whole Snowden business. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/topsecretamerica/
- stevenrace 13y ago
  Additionally, the 'Spying on the Homefront' [1] episode in 2007 brought up FISA, domestic wiretaps, AT&T's 'Room 641A' [2], etc. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/ [2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews...
- benmorris 13y ago
  I remember watching this and being shocked! A real eye opener, even after snowden. It shows just how big the spying industry has gotten in the last 10 years.
josefresco 13y ago
This. I would have replied here instead of posting a new thread if I saw your post first. Frontline is THE standard for in-depth reporting on TV.
wnevets 13y ago
remember to donate to your local PBS station, the last bastion of journalism.

kpapke 13y ago

EDIT Did anybody find that segment about the codebreakers and the Rubik's cube kind of silly? It seemed to send a message to me like, "These guys can solve a damn Rubik's cube okay. Their work is way over your head. Don't ask questions, just trust them."

joelrunyon 13y ago
Agreed. The 1:30 solve for a rubix cube is a bunk time too. I think I got mine down to 45 seconds which I referred to as "faster than anyone who can't solve a rubix cube" since it sounds impressive, but most guys who are amazing at it can do it in less than 15.

paul9290 13y ago

60 Minutes pawned by Jeff Bezos and now a paid stooge for the NSA who tried to further discredit Snowden.

atmosx 13y ago

I saw the show here[1]. It's beyond ridiculous. The saddest thing is how stupid they consider average Joe to be. [1] http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-snowden-bad/356174/ http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-... Another question that always puzzles me... Are operating system THAT vulnerable? Every Agency, Criminal, whatever-organization has a remote 0day windows/linux/macosx exploit????

troels 13y ago
Some more than others. But I'm pretty sure that the average consumer os is vulnerable to someone with the skills. Even if the os itself isn't, there will typically be hundreds of unaudited programs running under escalated privileges. Any one of those would suffice.
- noinsight 13y ago
  I think that the situation is hopeless for joe users, if someone wants to own their computer they will. I wouldn't really even trust many IT admins to not get owned if someone actually targets them (instead of the normal random stuff everyone gets). Even if you know what you're doing, in the worst case you just need to browse to the wrong URL to get instantly owned without user interaction. I think it's hopeless for systems that are used in standard "desktop" manner, the attack surface is so large. See for example this: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-fatale-dupes-it-guys-at-us-government-agency/ http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/03/fake-femme-fatale...
  - ds9 13y ago
    "Even if you know what you're doing, in the worst case you just need to browse to the wrong URL to get instantly owned without user interaction" You'll have to make a better case. In the exploit in your link, the user was tricked by social engineering, had his computer configured to automatically run Java applets from arbitrary sources, and in all probability was running Microsoft Windows - hardly someone practicing good security.
13y ago

nexttimer 13y ago

I think the majority of the US public doesn't even need any of that propaganda to hang Snowden in public and continue to put up with corrupt DC.

rl3 13y ago

Unsurprisingly, the words "targeting" and "collecting" were used interchangeably when convenient. In similar fashion, "metadata" was again used as a red herring. All domestic communications within the United States are currently intercepted and stored for at least 5 years, including content. Perhaps that wasn't a desirable talking point.

transfire 13y ago

"The fact is, we're not collecting everybody's email, we're not collecting everybody's phone things, we're not listening to that." Uh... http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ How easy it has become for them to lie.

computer 13y ago
The word "collecting" means something different in NSA vocabulary than it does in our vocabulary: to them, it is defined as "specifically looking at". Gather/store and collect are completely different things, to them... It allows for them to make such statements to people who don't know their definition, and later claim they did not lie.
- cryoshon 13y ago
  I really don't understand why they're allowed to redefine terms like this. Shouldn't the media be calling them out?
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    Yes. they should. now think real hard about why that might not be happening here.
uptown 13y ago
Even the use of the phrase "phone things" could be an attempt at being unspecific-enough to avoid lying. What are "phone things"? They're nothing ... or they're whatever we later describe them to be when confronted with conflicting information. On one of the most critical areas of disclosure - and the statement on it is meaningless.
KMag 13y ago
He's telling the truth. His phone is the one untapped phone in the country. His emails are the ones that are not being collected. Therefore, not everyone's phones are being tapped and not everyone's emails are being collected. Q.E.D.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

Who is the target? I mean, seriously. Nazism had Jews. Communism had bourgeois. Who is the enemy of the US Totalitarian Government. Because as we all (well, maybe not all) know from school, the totalitarian Government to exist needs two types of enemies: internal. And external. We know who the external enemies are: so called "terrorists". So this begs the question, who the internal enemy will be. They will probably also be called "terrorists". But will these be "islam fundamentalists" like in the case with external enemy. Or maybe so called "patriots"? Or OWS movements? I have no clue to be honest. Who is the enemy? Which group the propaganda machine will sacrifice to keep the wider populace in check, obedient and scared? Seriously asking because from me this is the only point from understanding if we are in fact dealing with totalitarians already or not yet. I assume this is morphing slowly into a totalitarian state. But who will be sacrificed? Who will be the internal enemy. That puzzle is missing for me. Who will be used to keep us scared? The scenario I think is possible: like with world trade centers, via/nsa/whatever will do some kind of horrible 'terrorist' attack on the US soil. Thousands will be killed. And the whole thing blamed on OWS -- or -- Patriots -- or -- both of these groups at the same time -- and prosecuted without courts in concentration camps a.k.a "Gauntanmo Bay". I know, I know, sounds like sci-fi. Anyone taking bets on that though? Because that's the only part of the puzzle they are missing. And if you ask me, the reason why they selected 'terrorism' as the target is not an incident. That's the only tactics that can be employed successfully against strong, organized total government effectively. Both Polish and French underground soldiers were called terrorists by the Nazis. If you take away democracy from people - at has already happened in the US where whoever we vote into the office will just do the same thing - the only option you leave them is violence. Terror. If you know and understand that - as they USG had known for a long time - your first step will be making them the public enemy #1 even before you start morphing the country into a totalitarian state. Who can be accused of terrorism? Even 82-old nuns are. http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-the-fort-knox-of-uranium-to-expose-lax-security http://jezebel.com/5943373/82+year+old-nun-breaks-into-the-f... Why not me for writing the above? The punishment? No right to lawyer, no right to due process, torture, indefinite imprisonment in de facto concentration camp. WAKE UP!

nisa 13y ago
> Who is the target? Every other nation. But there are no clear opponents. The struggle is to keep the US economy alive and growing. Industrial espionage. Trade agreements. Deregulation of markets if it is beneficial strong regulation otherwise. Enforcement of policies that are beneficial to US based industries. The war is an economic one.

josefresco 13y ago

Since when did anyone still consider 60 minutes serious journalism? They've long gone the way of "gee-whiz" reporting for the aging (and probably sleeping) baby-boomers. You want hard hitting journalism covering the worse situations around the world? Frontline has you covered.

VLM 13y ago
Watch the commercials. They're aimed older than the boomers. Aimed more for the Lawrance Whelk generation than the Beetles. They kept Rooney around because he reminded their average viewer of themselves. Please make a distinction for me that I'm not saying all old people are senile or even that its a good idea for one of our very few media corporations to push the idea that all old people are senile, but I am stating objectively there exists an infotainment news magazine format TV show oriented specifically toward the idea of selling advertising to nursing home viewers and their editorial spin is based on the idea the viewers are senile. They're pretty good at their job, for better or worse. What I mean, is if you don't like it, you're probably not part of the target market. (Also I agree with you, Frontline gives the BBC a serious run for their money)

forgotAgain 13y ago

I think its good to remember that these people are professionals in disinformation and psyops. If we don't understand what they are attempting then it's more likely due to our lack of experience in the area rather then their incompetence. One plausible explanation is it is an effort to give cover to friendly politicians during political campaigns. They can't just leave these people without a story. They need to supply them with something to counter all the negative news. The story doesn't have to be airtight. It just needs to be good enough for the majority of the population to remain accepting of the status quo. As an example of another bit in this campaign I would point to the recent instances of politicians claiming that Snowden must have had help from the Chinese or Russians. No proof was given but he just had to have help because how else could he have done it. It would be good to remember that the first goal of any organization is survival. There is no reason to think that the offensive capabilities of the NSA and the rest of the defense establishment aren't being used to protect themselves.

doki_pen 13y ago

And the first example they use is a "pirate"??!! That justifies a lack of privacy and an ungodly sum of tax money?! :throws up in mouth:

KMag 13y ago
Those Somali warlords tap undersea fiber optic cables, intercepting file transfers. Right now, there at least three different safe houses in the outskirts of Mogadishu with several terabyte hard drives rigged to blow up if their demands aren't met. Billions of dollars worth of the world's music is blown up every year by these monsters. Music piracy is a major threat to the US recording industry, and a legitimate target of the NSA.

cafard 13y ago

The notion that 60 Minutes had a position from which to decline is curious.

runjake 13y ago

An easy bite for a real journalist would've been Alexander's statement in the opening segment that NSA does not collect data ("phone calls and emails") on Americans. He then goes on to detail all the safeguards (FISA courts, access controls) to prevent analysts from mis-using this actually-collected "uncollected" data. A real journalist, which Miller isn't, would've been all over that. But if it hadn't been Miller, and it had a real journalist, there would've been no way NSA would've allowed CBS inside any part of the complex. Later in the segment, it is mentioned we share all this data with our FIVE EYES partner countries, where presumably, they don't have safeguards regarding foreign nationals (eg. Americans). Another something a real journalist would've jumped all over. Another little aside: Miller asked Ledgett (the Snwoden task force head and soon-to-be Deputy Director, NSA) how many times he's been interviewed by the media and he replied "One. Now.". He's been interviewed at least a few times before, most recently by the WSJ. A quick Google search pulled up this URL: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579214673029584730 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230460710...

IanDrake 13y ago

CBS is really pumping up the PR for the NSA. Recent episodes of NCIS have a NSA agent on loan to the NCIS staff. She's cute, smart, and quirky and does a great job protecting us all from the scary people. Also, Hawaii 5.0, had a hack attack on an episode lately and they were all "Thank god we have the NSA to protect us". Ok, I forget the details on that one, but I remember rolling my eyes. Now with 60 minutes jumping on board, it's plain to see there's a coordinated effort to spin the NSA in a good light. Not just a whitewash, the message is "The NSA spying on Americans is a good thing".

smacktoward 13y ago
This is true. I wonder how much of it is just CBS pandering to its demographic rather than coordinated propaganda, though. The CBS audience skews old (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/from-cbs-advertisers-get-the-older-viewers-they-want http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-06/from-cbs-adv...), and loves police procedurals, which as a genre unfailingly cheerlead for institutional authorities. (Think how many procedural plotlines turn on the Good Guy Cops lying to or physically threatening someone they've got in an interrogation room, for instance. This is always presented as the Good Guy Cops being smart and savvy, not as an abuse of power.) So if you've got an audience that wants to be told that the authorities are always right, you could decide strictly for business reasons to just give them more of that.
dlinder 13y ago
Never mind Person of Interest, where an all-seeing computer helps extralegal lawbending crimefighters save lives...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

siculars 13y ago

NSA and there mass media partners are basically running psyops on Americans. The sad thing is that it will probably work on many of the sheeple and provide ample cover for morning talk shows and op-ed articles ad nauseam.