3 ms·

While the scope was not known, Trailblazer, Thin Thread and Turbulence were known about, and whistleblown about fairly shortly after their inception. The diffe

by Squarel 11y ago

While the scope was not known, Trailblazer, Thin Thread and Turbulence were known about, and whistleblown about fairly shortly after their inception. The difference between when Binney & Drake etc blew the whistle and when Snowden did is the time that had passed since 9/11. Binney started making noise in 2002, when the public mood was "If it catches bad guys, it's all good" Drake began making noise at the same time, and first went to the media in 2005, when the Iraq & Afghanistan wars, and the hunt for Bin Laden were still relatively well supported. Snowden went public much later, and with much more detail, but if the first 2 (and the others who blew the whistle at the same time) had gotten media attention, the program may not have spread as far as it had by the time Snowden came along. Governments are fairly terrible at covering up secrets, the question is whether the media or the public want to pay attention.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
In fact, public awareness of massive NSA surveillance probably dates back to at least 1975 with the Church Committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
- uxp 11y ago
  You realize the irony of linking to that article, with the following quote: > Then on December 22, 1974, The New York Times published a lengthy article by Seymour Hersh detailing operations engaged in by the CIA over the years that had been dubbed the "family jewels". Seymour Hersh was instrumental in bringing the CIA spying revelations to the public view then.
pdkl95 11y ago
> the time that had passed since 9/11. The difference between when Binney & Drake blew the whistle and Snowden doing the same is that Snowden brought evidence. Binney & Drake were easily dismissed and buried by the media and the government because it was mostly their word against the government's word. The public general distrusts any claim that the government might not be the constitution-following, freedom-creating ideal they were taught in school. Usually, accusations of corruption in a government agency are dismissed as "conspiracy theories" even when overwhelming evidence is available, due to a faith that "it can't happen here"[1]. You see similar faith in how the public usually accepts the police at their word, even in ridiculous circumstances as we've seen with some of the recent high-profile police-brutality/murder incidents. Combine this paranoia style[2] of distrust with the usual spy-agency secrecy and no evidence the public could see - Binney & Drake never had a chance. It was a lot harder to ignore and dismiss the accusations when the Guardian started publishing the powerpoint slides that were stamped "TOP SECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN". [1] obZappa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdrAHn_LGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdrAHn_LGo [2] http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/ http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame...

by Squarel 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

In fact, public awareness of massive NSA surveillance probably dates back to at least 1975 with the Church Committee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

uxp 11y ago
You realize the irony of linking to that article, with the following quote: > Then on December 22, 1974, The New York Times published a lengthy article by Seymour Hersh detailing operations engaged in by the CIA over the years that had been dubbed the "family jewels". Seymour Hersh was instrumental in bringing the CIA spying revelations to the public view then.

pdkl95 11y ago

> the time that had passed since 9/11. The difference between when Binney & Drake blew the whistle and Snowden doing the same is that Snowden brought evidence. Binney & Drake were easily dismissed and buried by the media and the government because it was mostly their word against the government's word. The public general distrusts any claim that the government might not be the constitution-following, freedom-creating ideal they were taught in school. Usually, accusations of corruption in a government agency are dismissed as "conspiracy theories" even when overwhelming evidence is available, due to a faith that "it can't happen here"[1]. You see similar faith in how the public usually accepts the police at their word, even in ridiculous circumstances as we've seen with some of the recent high-profile police-brutality/murder incidents. Combine this paranoia style[2] of distrust with the usual spy-agency secrecy and no evidence the public could see - Binney & Drake never had a chance. It was a lot harder to ignore and dismiss the accusations when the Guardian started publishing the powerpoint slides that were stamped "TOP SECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN". [1] obZappa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdrAHn_LGo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svdrAHn_LGo [2] http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/ http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame...