Posted By LambChop
From The GuardianUK.com:
Why in Hong Kong,
What Docs do you have and who did you give them to? 1) First, the US
Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and
predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring
me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even
unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it
would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of
prison than in it.Second, let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations
against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked
civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses
because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no
matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an
exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on
the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for
public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect
millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a
computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a
potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own
Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in
its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.2) All I
can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up
by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
Why Hong Kong instead
of Iceland? Leaving the US was an
incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in
advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be
interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country
with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being
immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder,
quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known,
and I would not put that past the current US administration.
On Manning – did he
intend harm? No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and
they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of
public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a
partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many
media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear
Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.
Salary discrepancy? I
was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of
those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that
$200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the
course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.
Why did you wait
until after election? Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith
that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for
votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming
power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened
and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political
capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo,
where men still sit without charge.
Direct Access
Definition; Can NSA listen to calls?
More detail on how direct NSA's
accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI,
CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter
and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell
phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions
against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any
time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake
justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of
those performed.
2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word
here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments
Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected
and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a
warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end
of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even
in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand
the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a
"real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the
"warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a
reliable judge with a rubber stamp.
NSA accesses content too?
Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and
that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All
of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets
saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather
than warrants.
On Facebook/Google
denials: Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and
more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language
across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these
companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details
about these programs for the first time since their inception.They are legally
compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the
program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with
the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut
them down?
On claiming to have
authority to wiretap anyone: Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy
limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy
protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens)
and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our
ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is
euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and
can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested,
and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected
communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of
the IP they're tagged with.More fundamentally, the "US Persons"
protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this
system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's
only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write
that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are
created equal."
Have you given/sold secrets to China in exchange for asylum ? This is
a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has
a knee-jerk "RED CHINA!" reaction to anything involving HK or the
PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct.
Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into
Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.
Terrorists have
changed behavior because of your leaks: US officials say this every time
there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also
provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these
programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents
clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.
Journalists should ask a specific question: since these
programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist
attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless
surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many
individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it
was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than
terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of
falling victim to it.
Encryption? Encryption
works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things
that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak
that NSA can frequently find ways around it.
Does the system work?
Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh
responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope,
and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not
going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the
conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better
whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand
against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an
equally harsh public response.This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to
appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law
rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the
President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping
forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to
review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State
Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition
for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by
appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in
office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest
offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of
transparency.
What to advise
others? This country is worth dying for.
Single moment that
prompted you to act? I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for
me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from
senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the
realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly
supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of
James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the
public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The
consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
Classified info to
Chinese? No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like
with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.
Opinion of public debate
so far? Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream
media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my
girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless
surveillance in human history.
Anything else? Thanks
to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the
target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person /
foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized
suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the
precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its
surveillance.
Recent Comments