NYT, Guardian, and ProPublica Join Forces

For the first time, a National Security Agency leak has been published simultaneously by three different news organizations. The New York Times, the Guardian, and ProPublica all joined forces following a tumultuous experience with British authorities last month.

As ProPublica made clear in their eloquent explanation, an important relationship exists between publishing leaks and protecting civil liberties:

There are those who, in good faith, believe that we should leave the balance between civil liberty and security entirely to our elected leaders, and to those they place in positions of executive responsibility. Again, we do not agree. The American system, as we understand it, is premised on the idea -- championed by such men as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison -- that government run amok poses the greatest potential threat to the people’s liberty, and that an informed citizenry is the necessary check on this threat. The sort of work ProPublica does -- watchdog journalism -- is a key element in helping the public play this role.

As we've seen lately, government abuse has finally reached a point where no one can go it alone. The lone journalist who attempts to speak truth to power is sure to fail, pulled down both by the power he attempts to hold accountable and by his own peers, who enjoy their access to government officials far too much to speak up.

Luckily, journalists are finally learning the meaning of "United we stand, divided we fall." While it is easy to call for the prosecution of a lone journalist who reports on government abuses, very little can be done about three major news organizations working together. Even if the government were to push back, we would see the alliance between journalists strengthen -- as it did following the destruction of the Guardian's hard-drives -- rather than weaken. More alliances like these are needed to keep the ball rolling toward transparency.

Thanks For The Info

The New York Times website today:

Good to know. Tell us more.

Update: Looks like the Guardian has just published their story relating to this.

And here is the NYT's version.

LOVEINT

Coming of Age

More Comics and News >>

Needles in Haystacks

A brilliant quote from Techdirt's Mike Masnick about the recently leaked NSA budget:

  ...the NSA is swimming in so much information that it asked for nearly $50 million to cope with the problem of having too much information. We've pointed out for years that the trick to finding the needles in haystacks isn't to build bigger haystacks, but that's long been the NSA's approach. However, those haystacks have become so big that the NSA asked for $48.6 million designated for "coping with information overload." Here's a simple, and cheaper, plan: don't collect so much irrelevant data.

"Key Surveillance Laws"

While trying to explain away cases of agents spying on lovers and spouses, the NSA slipped into babble recently:

NSA said in a statement Friday that there have been “very rare” instances of willful violations of any kind in the past decade, and none have violated key surveillance laws. “NSA has zero tolerance for willful violations of the agency’s authorities” and responds “as appropriate.”

Willful violations? Zero tolerance? What do those phrases mean to the NSA? I especially want to know about these "key surveillance laws." They sound important. I assume they're written down somewhere. And if spying on one's lover doesn't violate them, then what does?

TREASON!

Please Trust NSA

The NSA Hubbub Continues

Techdirt has become one of my favorite sources for surveillance news lately, thanks in large part to Mike Masnick's tireless coverage of every possible news angle. Some highlights include:

• Rep. Morgan Griffith: If Latest Leaks On NSA Had Come Out Earlier, NSA-Defunding Amendment Would Have Passed
• Wyden And Udall: Latest Revelations Of Abuses 'Are Just The Tip Of A Larger Iceberg'

The tide is quickly turning, but you can't expect the intelligence community to admit that yet. They have a knack for stubbornness and for making absurd and untruthful claims about their activities. Think of Clapper's statement to congress, his many explanations for that statement, and now this doozy from the NSA's director of compliance, John DeLong, via the Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

"NSA has a zero-tolerance policy for willful misconduct," Mr. DeLong said. "None of the incidents that were in the document released were willful." Mr. DeLong reported, however, "a couple" of willful violations in the past decade. He didn't provide details.

Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Sen. Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, who really ought to know:

As I have said previously, the committee has never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes.

But of course, the "truthfulness" of that statement depends on one's own definition of "inappropriate purposes." In Feinstein's mind, there might be a difference between intentional abuses conducted for appropriate purposes and intentional abuses conducted for inappropriate purposes. I can't imagine what that difference would be, but I can sure imagine someone defending their words with such a distinction and getting away with it, a la Clapper. That's just the how the world works now.

An important message from the NSA

Meanwhile, congress is (surprisingly) keeping up the good fight. Sen. Pat Toomey issued a statement yesterday that read in part:

The latest revelations about privacy violations by the NSA raise important questions and warrant a congressional hearing.

In other words, the Amash Amendment, narrowly defeated in congress, isn't dead yet. The scale is tipping. Many representatives, including Rep. Amash, are raring for a second go.

Now Vs. Near Future

Another round of "Is Glenn Greenwald a real journalist?"

HotAir's Jazz Shaw has begun another round of "Is Glenn Greenwald a real journalist?" in a piece entitled "Defining Glenn Greenwald". The answer to that question will, obviously, determine the fate of the world. There's no other explanation for its constant recurrence.

Shaw's main beef with Greenwald, surprisingly, is not that Greenwald is publishing classified information, but that he is not publishing it all at once. Greenwald, he suggests, is releasing the documents "in dribs and drabs" in order to ingratiate himself with the public, because "Glenn is in the business of promoting Glenn."

Unfortunately, he blasts Greenwald's character with what appears to be a complete fabrication (emphasis added):

"when the White House indicated that they would be pursuing Snowden, Greenwald immediately resorted to threats, indicated that if 'anything happens' to him, he would open the floodgates."

Goodness me! What Greenwald actually said is that Snowden is no longer the sole possessor of the NSA documents, so their publication does not depend upon Snowden's freedom. He never said anything about changing the frequency of publication in reaction to something happening to Snowden.

A lot of misinformation gets around about Greenwald, but today was downright silly. Elsewhere, the Huffington Post's headline blared: "GREENWALD VOWS VENGEANCE: ENGLAND 'WILL BE SORRY'," to which Andrea Peterson of the Washington Post responded with a sobering blog post: "No, Glenn Greenwald didn't 'vow vengeance.' He said he was going to do his job." Cue weary sigh.