|
The Errors of Edward Snowden and His Global Hypocrisy Tour
@ Vanity Fair of all placesNow, before I get into the specifics of Snowden's China leaks, I want to stop for a minute. I know that, from the time he disclosed classified documents about the mass collection of Americans' telecommunications data, there have been plenty of debates about whether Snowden is a whistle-blower or a traitor. And I can understand that disagreement when it comes to the data-mining program that slurps up e-mail and phone data of American citizens. But what, exactly, is Snowden attempting to prove with his China revelations? That countries engage in espionage? That the United States listens in on communications of countries with which it maintains often tense and occasionally volatile relations? The existence of electronic espionage seems to be his beef. In an interview with the South China Morning Post--in which he admitted that he took a job as a systems administrator with an N.S.A. consultant, Booz Allen Hamilton, for the purpose of stealing classified documents--Snowden laid out his bizarre and egomaniacal philosophy: he would decide what information to pass on in countries around the world. "If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country to make their own assessment, independent of my bias, as to whether or not the knowledge of US network operations against their people should be published."Note the language. It's against the people, not the governments. He wants everyone to think we're doing this against Joe Grocer in Hong Kong out of malice. I'll have to assume that Snowden is on this fit of self-righteous arrogance because he thinks there is something wrong with what he's seen of United States surveillance in other countries. But to decide that standard espionage activities are improper is a foolish, ahistorical belief. N.S.A. surveillance has been beneficial repeatedly in American foreign policy. Although most instances remain secret, we already know that the N.S.A. listened to Soviet pilots during the 1983 shooting down of a South Korean airliner; used intercepted diplomatic messages to track a 1986 Berlin disco bombing to Libya; and used the cell phones' SIM cards to track terrorist suspects after the 9/11 attacks. But let's take a more important example. In 1937--at a time when the United States was declaring neutrality in the emerging global tensions that fueled World War II--the Japanese government created a cipher for its military messages using a device called the "97-shiki O-bun In-ji-ki." The Americans code-named it "Purple." The United States military was able to intercept Japanese communications (the very reason that Tokyo needed a code) but couldn't decrypt the information sent through the Purple machine. William Friedman, the first American cryptography expert who tried to break the code, made some progress before suffering a nervous breakdown. Using that initial information, others managed to break more of the code. Once cracked, the United States could track Japanese naval-troop movements and even intercepted communications containing plans for the Pearl Harbor attack--information that was not properly used. Would Snowden have been outraged that the United States was intercepting Japanese data at a time when the countries were not at war? It took years to crack the Purple code--would Snowden think the United States should have waited until after Pearl Harbor to tap into Japanese communication lines, and only then begin the arduous effort to break the code? And if not, then what is his point in turning over these kinds of secrets to the Chinese? All I have to say is, thank God Snowden was not around in 1937, four years before the United States joined the war--Lord knows how many Americans would have died if he had acted with whatever arrogance, or self-righteousness, or narcissism, or pure treasonous beliefs that drove him to his espionage on behalf of the Chinese. I didn't really want to get into the big digression on modern techniques here, just wanted to point out the historical context, and the modern social context the author points out here: Which brings us back to Snowden's global hypocrisy tour. I think nothing has more thoroughly damaged Snowden's "whistle-blower" persona than his bizarre--and, I would say, cowardly--decision to rely on some of the countries with the greatest history of oppression to help keep him out of the Americans' hands. (Usually, when people engage in civil disobedience for a cause--which Snowden seems to want people to believe he is doing--they accept the punishment that will accompany their decision. Snowden, instead, has acted like a spy, fleeing to countries with deeply strained relationships with the United States. The irony of someone purportedly dedicated to privacy and human rights aiding the Chinese government grew even starker while Snowden was in Hong Kong. Last week, Human Rights Watch issued a report condemning a massive surveillance campaign undertaken by the Chinese government in Tibetan villages, which results in political re-education of those who may question the Communist regime and the establishment of partisan security units. "These tactics discriminate against those perceived as potentially disloyal, and restrict their freedom of religion and opinion," Human Rights Watch wrote. But hey, that's just real life, not the Internet privacy that concerns Snowden. And, of course, the level of the Chinese government's surveillance and control of their citizens' use of the Internet is almost an art form. Just six months ago, China's legislative body, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, adopted the "Decision to Strengthen the Protection of Online Information." The new rules, which Human Rights Watch says "threaten security and privacy of internet users," require telecommunications providers to collect reams of personal information about customers who sign up for Internet, landline, or cell-phone service. The law also requires for the providers to insure they have the ability to immediately identify the real names of people who post comments under pseudonyms. Guess why? "In the days following the decision,'' Human Rights Watch reported, "several well-known online activists found that their weibo micro-blogging accounts had been shut down.'' As for Russia, the crackdown on public activism has intensified in recent months, which, again, has led to Human Rights Watch issuing a report just a few weeks before Snowden landed in Moscow. "The crackdown is threatening civil society," said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The EU has spoken out strongly in recent months, but now is the time to directly call on Russia's leadership to revise restrictive laws and stop the harassment of independent groups." Primarily, the Russians are going after hundreds of rights groups and related activist organizations as part of a massive campaign to force them to register as foreign agents. "The authorities are seeking to define 'political' so broadly as to make any involvement in public life that is not controlled by the government off-limits," Williamson said. "They are also trying to tarnish groups with the 'foreign agents' label, which in Russia can only mean 'spy.'" And what about Ecuador? Why, just two weeks ago, this country that is apparently on Snowden's list of possible future homes passed new rules that impede free expression. The statute, called the Communications Law, prohibits anyone from disseminating information through the media that might undermine the prestige or credibility of a person or institution (you know, like revealing a government-sponsored surveillance program). The law also places burdens on journalists, making them subject to civil or criminal penalties for publishing information that serves to undermine the security of the state (you know, like revealing a government-sponsored surveillance program). The takeaway from all of this is perplexing. Perhaps Snowden is so impaired by his tunnel vision about America's espionage techniques that he doesn't understand he has made himself an international fool by cozying up to some of the world's less-admirable regimes on issues of human rights. And there is another thing to bear in mind: Since Snowden seems keen on turning over secret American information to repressive governments, will he be, in the end, acting to aid that repression? Will whatever information he yields be the missing thread that these authoritarian governments need to oppress their citizens more? I don't know. Neither do you. And, in the most horrible reality of all, neither does Edward Snowden.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-07-01 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=371309 |