Hail to the Thief: The Case Against Edward Snowden – Signature Reads

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden is a polarizing figure.

Some consider him a whistleblower who sacrificed his career and freedom to inform the American people of government intrusion into their private lives. Edward Jay Epstein, author of How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft, suspects that Snowdens motives were less than noble, and that, intentionally or not, his actions benefited the intelligence apparatus of an adversary nation.

In this interview, Epstein shares some of the lesser known facts behind the headlines, and opines on whether or not Snowdens flight to Russia helped the country to hack our most recent presidential election.

SIGNATURE: Youve been digging into the skullduggery behind some of our biggest headlines for a long time. Why did you choose Snowden for your next project?

EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN: To answer your question in some depth, I began as an undergraduate in college where I got access to all the members of the Warren Commission, which no one had ever done before or after, as well as their records, so before I had even graduated college, I found that some narratives that are accepted as unquestionable facts can be questioned. In the case of the Warren Commission, the unquestioned assertion was that it had done a totally exhaustive job. I found that while they had done an honest and good job, it wasnt exhaustive and they hadnt answered certain questions.

Ive found, at least in my case, that an author keeps writing his first successful book over and over again. I kept looking for areas in which a narrative could be questioned, even if it turned out that the narrative was true, like in the case of the 9/11 Commission. I had planned to do a book about it, but when I found that the 9/11 Commission had actually done the job that it was supposed to do, I dropped that project and moved on to another one.

My search pattern has always been to look for something that comes from a single source and is maybe questionable. I realized that the entire narrative about Snowden that he was a whistleblower, that he was a patriot who had only accidentally ended up in Russia and who had only helped America came from a single, self-interested source who was actually in Moscow: Snowden himself. That interested me. If the world was depending on this one guy who was the perpetrator of a crime and was under the control of the Russian government, then I was going to look at the case de novo blank slate myself.

SR: If I had paid only a little bit of attention to the Snowden affair, I would be left with the following idea: Snowden had slipped away with a file indicating that the NSA had an illegal surveillance apparatus in the United States, and that Moscow had given him sanctuary from American persecution. That would be the narrative I would follow. The one you explore in your book is a good bit different.

EJE: If you, or anyone else, who simply read the accounts coming from the very small group of people Glenn Greenwald, Barton Gellman, Laura Poitras, and Snowdens lawyers, Ben Wizner, and Robert Tibbo, maybe another person or two after theyd gone through the echo chamber of the media, youd get the exact narrative you suggested: that Snowden only stole documents that exposed an illegal NSA program, and that because the US government had tricked and demonized him, his winding up in Moscow was the work of the Obama administration and that he was really trying to get to South America. You can see it all in the Oliver Stone movie; thats the narrative.

The problem with that narrative, and its very simple, is that he didnt take two, or three, or a thousand documents bearing on his whistleblowing. He stole, or as the House Intelligence Committee says, removed, 1.5 million files, some of which had as many as 32,000 pages. He took a massive amount of communication and signal intelligence: more than anyone in history has ever taken before. These included 900,000 military documents involving submarines, drones, planes, cyberwarfare that had nothing to do with whistleblowing. Just imagine if someone robbing a bank found a few pages in the bank that showed it wasnt giving the proper rebates to the customers and he took those to the media, and took the rest of the haul away: You wouldnt call the guy a whistleblower, youd call him a bank robber. Thats what Snowden did.

Snowden stopped in Hong Kong and had a disclosure operation there where he disclosed to reporters all of whom were honest reporters, I would have done the same thing they did and so would have any other reporter that he was with the NSA and then presented them with documents that showed that the NSA was involved with an illegal program. Whether they were illegal or just questionable is an argument, but lets give him credit and say they were illegal. What he didnt tell the reporters, these reporters who almost became like the prophets of a religion, was that he had met with officials of the Russian government. How do we know that? Its because Vladimir Putin, of all people, decided to disclose that Snowden had met with Russian officials in Hong Kong before he was granted asylum. We know that he was in contact with the Russians, and he didnt disclose that.

He also didnt disclose that he removed 1.5 million documents. How do we know that he removed that large number? Were talking about digital copies, its not like he took books and theyre missing from the library. In this digital world, you make a copy of something and the original remains where it is. The way we know is that he transferred them between computers and left a trail that he tried to erase but the NSA and Department of Defense was able to reconstruct. We know that because the House Intelligence Committee, the oversight committee for the NSA, did a report which was released in September 2016 that stated that the house committee had been given a damage assessment by the Department of Defense. Thats how we know that, but he didnt tell the reporters this. He denied it. So the narrative begins that this is a whistleblower who made headlines by exposing some very unsavory programs that the NSA was involved in.

Everyone wants privacy I dont blame them and to them, Snowden was a hero because he was standing up for his privacy. What they didnt know was about his meeting with the Russians, and how many documents he took. At the time he took them and for many months after, the NSA didnt know the total size of the damage because they didnt know how he transferred them. It was the Department of Defense that actually had a team of between 200 and 250 intelligence officers reading through every document that pieced together the trail which led to a server in the cryptocenter where he was working and they were able to reconstruct the number of files he transferred to it. Snowdens narrative was a false narrative in every respect. Like all false narratives, it had a number of true statements in it, and these can convince people that all of it cant be lies. Some of what he said was truthful.

SR: How is it that someone like Snowden, who had very little formal background in what he did, get the clearance that he had? How did he manage to get these documents out of what I would have to assume is a very secure facility?

EJE: Snowden had very little formal education. He dropped out of high school in his first year. Thats not to say that he wasnt smart, but he had no formal education. He loved to play games and loved computers, apparently. I was able to reconstruct that from his posts, tweets, and other social media.

His entire family worked for the government. His grandfather, Edward Barrett, was an admiral in the Coast Guard, and then worked for a CIA joint task force. Then he had a high position in the FBI. His father was a member of the Coast Guard. His mother worked for a court in Maryland. His sister worked for the Federal Judicial Center. Everyone in his family worked for the government, so it wasnt surprising that he would look for a government job.

He tried to be in the military but was administratively discharged after a few months. He then worked as a security guard for a facility at the University of Maryland that was related to the NSA, so he got a security clearance. Then he joined the CIA as a TCO: a Technical Communications Officer. After he got fired, or forced to resign, he sought out private contractors.

Private contractors look for one thing besides a person who knows how to work a computer: They look for someone who already has a security clearance. When you leave the CIA, you keep your SCI (sensitive compartmentalized information) security clearance for two years, even if you leave under a cloud, like Snowden did. He had an SCI security clearance, so he was very valuable. A contractor wouldnt have to go through the trouble of getting him a security clearance.

He went to Japan, where he worked for Dell SecureWorks: a private contractor. He did okay, and a few months later, he took the most valuable of information and went to work for Booz Allen. He offered to take a pay cut, and again, he was very valuable because he had an SCI clearance, so they snapped him up. He went to work at the center for five or six weeks, maybe less, and stole all the information there and left.

It started at the CIA: He got the security clearance there and kept it. The real scandal is not so much Snowden, but how American intelligence has privatized intelligence by having outside contractors run the computers. Hes part of the scandal.

SR: I assume that I wouldnt be able to walk out with a flash drive very easily were I an employee of one of these agencies, and the information is compartmentalized, too. How was he able to get access to this and get it out? I would have thought that it was impossible until I read the book.

EJE: It was close to impossible. Snowden organized it very cleverly. He started work in the second week of April 2013 at Booz Allen, which had a contract at the cryptology center in Hawaii. Its a tall, modern building at Wheeler Air Force Base. He went to work there, and because the information and methods they worked with were so secret, independent contractors like Snowden werent allowed to have what they called fat computers: portable computers with ports and storage capability. Everyone worked with the NSA equivalent of an iPad: a thin computer. Its a security measure so no one can steal information.

What Snowden managed to do was to use his thin computer to transfer the data to a server at the center. He had the passwords to that, and according to the House Select Committee on Intelligence, he drove the twenty minute drive to the place he formerly worked, a place called the Kunia Tunnel, where he had left his old computer a fat computer and used it to download the information from the server into that computer. From there, he put it on thumb drives and took it.

The whole operation was extremely complicated for someone who had been working at the cryptological center for two weeks or something like that. Had he planned it in advance? Did he have someone working with him at his old job at the Kunia Tunnel that had his old computer? None of it is very clear to me. He didnt have passwords for any of the compartments he entered. One way or the other, and I dont know the way, I only know now that the FBI is willing to assume he did it alone and Im reporting that, he managed to get the information downloaded to his old computer.

Leaving the NSA is not a big deal: Hundreds of people work at the center and they leave every night to go home. Theres a big parking lot and they walk out. I sort of went to the center and was only allowed in a few feet, but I could see the parking lot and the people leaving and they just stream out. They randomly check people, supposedly, but if theres a random check I would say its one in a thousand, just observing it. Snowden walked out with the external drives, got on an airplane, and went to Hong Kong. Thats how he stole the information.

SR: Id like to fast forward to a point in the story that I think is particularly salient right now. He took all of this information to Russia and disappeared for a while. We had nothing more from him than basically a promise that he wouldnt turn over documents to them that were dangerous to our national security.

EJE: He didnt promise anyone anything. The important thing here is that he met with what Putin called diplomats. Russian diplomats often have a second job, intelligence, especially in a place like Hong Kong. Putin used the plural, diplomats, not a diplomat. He might have met with them before he met with the journalists, but they knew, suddenly everyone in the world knew after he met with the journalists that he had a large number of documents. Maybe just 15,000, not 1.5 million, but they knew he had a large number. The Russians knew that and he was put on a Russian airplane and was flown to Russia.

Snowdens passport was suspended in Hong Kong, so why the Russians put him on the plane is speculation. My guess is that they knew he was going to give them a lot of information, or they had already gotten it before he got on the plane. In any case, he flew to Russia and was taken off the plane in what they called a special operation. Then he disappeared from June 23 to July 14. During that time, no one in the outside world no journalists saw him. They didnt see him getting off the plane, so the last time they saw him was in Hong Kong.

In that period, as the various American intelligence services I spoke with said, he was their man: He was in the palm of their hands. They didnt have to threaten him with torture, they could just threaten him by sending him back to America. America was trying to get him back. He said he gave nothing to the Russians, but almost every spy who goes to Russia, or China, or everywhere else, says they gave nothing to them. That, simply, is another part of his narrative: that he gave nothing to Russia.

Since Putin jeopardized a summit conference that was scheduled with Obama for September, and Obamas participation in, or attendance at, the Winter Olympic games that were scheduled in Sochi, he knew he was going to pay a high price. One has to assume that he also knew he would get something back for it.

SR: How bad has this hurt the United States? The topic of Russian hacking is top news right now. Can we see a connection between anything Snowden provided, our current political climate, and how the intelligence community was affected?

EJE: Its hard to deny or neglect the connection between the damage that Snowden did and the presence of Russian intrusions in cyberspace. The moment the NSA determined Snowden had taken those 1.5 million files and the Pentagon had gone through each and every one of those files which took four months around the clock it didnt matter whether he had given the files to Russia, or China, or journalists, or thrown them into the ocean, or burned them. The moment those files were taken out of the secure environment of the NSA in Hawaii, they had to be considered compromised. When a source, or the sources in these documents, are compromised, theres only one thing to do: shut them down. You dont know if the Russians got them, but if they did, theyll arrest anyone connected with them, or use the channels to feed disinformation through.

What happened after Snowden removed those files was a massive case of self-destruction. The NSA had to close down every source in those files. That meant that, basically, the NSA and CIA suddenly went dark, and anyone who depended on them for intelligence on Russian and China, couldnt anymore.

Deputy Director of the NSA Richard Ledgett described one of those files as the keys to the kingdom: It contained every gap in American coverage of Russia. That file gave whomever obtained it a road map to everything the United States, Britain, and Israeli intelligence was doing. All of the sources had to be closed down. The NSA was shut down in a large part of its coverage of adversary nations, which included North Korea, China, and Russia.

Now the question comes is what damage is done when the NSA goes dark. The answer is the old adage: When the cat is away, the mice will play. Russia, realizing that we had to shut down all of our sources, now had a tremendous amount of room to establish its own activities, which included not only hacking and a lot of attention has been paid to hacking and false news but that cant be successful unless theres a feedback loop: a way in which theyre able to assess where its going right and where its going wrong, and where it is achieving their purposes and where it is counterproductive. They needed to establish their own penetrations and everything that goes with them.

In the black period that started as soon as the NSA realized these documents were taken in the Spring of 2013, the agency had to find new sources. Whether they did or didnt I dont know, but the vice chairman of Booz Allen, and the former director of the NSA and former Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, said that generations of intelligence was lost by Snowdens act. If I understand that properly, generations means intelligence that has been gathered over twentyyears is one generation and it goes on. Huge amounts of sources were compromised, which left huge opportunities for Russia to become more aggressive, especially in cyberspace. I dont think we can ignore the possible connection between the loss of our own ability to defend ourselves in cyberspace and the intrusion of other countries, including Russia.

Continued here:
Hail to the Thief: The Case Against Edward Snowden - Signature Reads

Edward Snowden: An argument for treachery – UVU Review

Edward Snowdens illegal release of classified information will rank among the most widely debated issues of the millennial generation. One side of the argument depicts Snowdens actions as honorable, if not patriotic. Others cry foul.

David Menzies brought the conversation to UVU in the Jan. 9, 2017 edition of The Review. I encourage you to read his artful summation of the situation and his call for Snowdens safe returnand heros welcometo the United States. Many will welcome Snowden home, but as a hero, I sincerely doubt.

Snowden claimed the National Security Agency, or NSA, was violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. As an employee of both the Central Intelligence Agency and the NSA subcontractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden was trained in the proper use and handling of classified information and materiel. We can be certain he received this training as it is both regular and mandatory.

Subsection 798 (a) of Title 18, US code states it is against federal law if a person knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information. Suffice it to say, by leaking classified material, Snowden broke the law.

Regardless of rhetoric, Snowden knew the rules and he chose to violate them. He claimed he took his concerns to multiple superiors and reported being ignored. He then decided his only option was treason and espionage. Subsection 2302 (b) (8) of Title 5, US code protects intelligence whistleblowers from punitive action. His failure to pursue this institutionalized last resort indicates either contempt for the US government or a preconceived radicalization.

Laws especially those in Title 18, US code should apply to everyone charged with the care of classified material. But do they?

Menzies aptly described the US government as a snake eating its tail. US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the nations lead prosecutor concerning violations of federal law, was unable to define the very laws Snowden was condemned for breaking, during her July 12, 2016 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

When Hillary Clinton was accused of mishandling classified material, the same debate erupted. Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah asked Lynch whether mishandling of classified material was against the law. Lynch replied with, It depends.

How are contractors supposed to know and respect the law when Attorney General Lynch refuses to acknowledge them?

When I asked Congressman Chaffetz about Lynchs responses to his questions he said, Its ridiculous. [People] should be in prison.

Snowden

Visit link:
Edward Snowden: An argument for treachery - UVU Review

Blame Snowden and Manning for the CIA Leak – Newsweek – Newsweek

This article first appeared on The Daily Signal.

The most recent dumpof documents from WikiLeaks can be directly attributed to Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden.

No, I dont think either of these two previous titleholdersof the "biggest spy in modern history" award was directly involved with this disastrous event. Manning is still in prison, but not for much longer, and Snowden is still sunning himself in some dacha in Vladimir Putins Russian paradise.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Their physical fingerprints are not on it this time, but their actions and the failure of Americas leaders to ensure their punishment surely led to this.

As curious reporters and pundits paw over the enormous pile of stolen secrets from WikiLeaks Vault 7, some people are debating whether Julian Assanges troops have committed a crime or have done a servicestriking a blow for openness and slaying the dragon of spying.

Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden's portraits adorn an umbrella at a protest march against the electronic surveillance tactics of the NSA on July 27, 2013, in Berlin. Steven Bucci writes that the thief who plundered Vault 7 was watching what happened to Manning and Snowden, and the message he or she took was that there would be little downside to ignoring the law, violating their oath and deciding that they as an individual knew better than the collective wisdom of the leaders of our land. Sean Gallup/Getty

There should be no question in anyones mind that this was a huge blow to Americas security and makes the nation less safe. Our enemies now have a much better idea as to how the CIA contributes to protecting America from those who openly, and with no remorse, mean to do her harm.

In truth, if Manning had not been pardoned by President Barack Obama, and if Snowden had not been allowed to escape into Russias protection, this massive leak still may have happened. It is extremely unlikely that these were obtained by hacking.

Related: Has the CIA been damaged by the latest WikiLeaks leaks?

The CIA is not the Democratic National Committee. The agencys computer security is not perfect (it does have humans involved in it), but it is darned good, and it is not connected to the internet.

The most likely way WikiLeaks obtained the Vault 7 files was by a malicious insider stealing them.

A malicious insider (like Manning and Snowden) is someone who has the proper clearance and authority to be inside the network, but uses that authority to loot the files and pass them on to others who have no lawful right to see them.

That is a federal crime. It is spying, and it is a treasonous act. No amount of pained logic, hand-wringing and moral gymnastics can turn that into heroic action.

Criminal acts are normally deterred by the fact that previous occurrences have been severely punished to the fullest extent of the law. But that did not happen with regard to Manning. He got a fraction of what the judge could have given him for his guilty verdict, and Obama pardoned a big chunk of that.

It has not happened to Snowden, who still sits blithely in Russia, occasionally piped in to American academic conferences by Skype to opine on the police state called America.

The thief who got Vault 7 was watching, and the message he or she took was that there would be little downside to ignoring the law, violating their oath and deciding that they as an individual knew better than the collective wisdom of the leaders of our land.

No, Manning and Snowden didnt walk out with the files this time, but they are, together with the weak responses of the Obama administration, fully to blame.

Steven Bucci is a visiting research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Go here to see the original:
Blame Snowden and Manning for the CIA Leak - Newsweek - Newsweek

Edward Snowden: Refugees Who Helped Him Seek Canada … – Time – TIME

Sri Lankan refugee Supun Thilina Kellapatha (3rd L), 32, his partner Nadeeka (L), 33, with their baby boy Dinath, daughter Sethumdi, 5, Sri Lankan refugee Ajith Puspa (3rd R), 45, and Filipino refugee Vanessa Rodel (R), 40, with her daughter Keana, 5, pose for a photo in front of the government buildings of Hong Kong on Feb. 23, 2017, after attending a press conference where they said Sri Lankan Criminal Investigation Division (CID) is searching for them.ISAAC LAWRENCEAFP/Getty Images

Refugees who sheltered former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in Hong Kong are now seeking asylum in Canada, their lawyers said on Thursday.

The three families are at risk for persecution and grave consequences if they stay in Hong Kong, according to their layers from a non-profit called For the Refugees. More than ever, relocating our clients to Canada is a question of life and death, one of the Canadian attorneys, Marc-Andr Sguin, said in a statement.

Snowden fled the United States in 2013 after leaking thousands of files about the NSAs surveillance operations. The refugee families fed and housed him for two weeks before he left for Russia , according to the BBC .

In recent weeks, the refugees lawyers felt they needed to speed up their asylum process, Sguin told the South China Morning Post . Two of the refugees have said they are being pursued by police from Sri Lanka, where they are originally from, according to the newspaper. They fear the Sri Lankan government could torture them if they were captured.

Snowden tweeted about the effort to secure asylum for the refugees on Thursday, and others, including Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who played the whistleblower in the recent film about him, have also tried to raise awareness, according to the BBC.

Excerpt from:
Edward Snowden: Refugees Who Helped Him Seek Canada ... - Time - TIME

Edward Snowden Thinks The Wikileaks Docs Are Real And Offers His Take On What The ‘Big Deal’ Is – GOOD Magazine

Say what you want about the prior acts of Edward Snowden, but good, bad, or otherwise, the man is in a position to look at the recent Wikileaks document dump and shed some light on whats really at play.

Snowden, currently living in asylum in Russia while a wanted man in his native United States, suggested via Twitter that the docs look authentic to him. He offers not only an explanation of what led him to draw the conclusion that theyre real, but also talks about what he finds to be the biggest story amidst the thousands of docs and cables.

He provides his thoughts in some pretty intuitive and logically successive tweets which tell the story well devoid of any other necessary context.

He also posits that the documents reveal the governments activity in keeping privately-produced software vulnerable so that they can access data contained therein. That part is more difficult to ascertain based on the snippets he presents, but you certainly can choose to take him at his word or not.

The last time this issue made headlines was in the fallout of the San Bernadino shooting when the U.S. government tried to compel Apple to assist in accessing the shooters phone in the name of national security. Apple declined, stating that act would undercut the publics faith in not just Apples willingness to maintain privacy, but all companies.

If what Snowdens saying here is true that the U.S. government is hacking the software of U.S.-made products that might all be moot, as theyll gain access without assistance. And the holes that they leave open can allow other rogue hackers to gain the same access in pursuit of whatever ends they seek.

Boiled down, his observations, however insightful, tell us what most of us already presumed the U.S. government cares more about information gathering than it does about the privacy of its citizens. Perhaps not a revelation, but hopefully this concrete evidence, if true, will result in answers and explanations.

Never one to leave us on an upbeat note, Snowden let us know the many, many ways the government could be peering into your life.

More:
Edward Snowden Thinks The Wikileaks Docs Are Real And Offers His Take On What The 'Big Deal' Is - GOOD Magazine

The Edward Snowden effect? Millennial view on data a concern for government and business – ABC Online

By Jessica Haynes

Updated March 09, 2017 14:32:11

Former director of the CIA Michael Hayden has hinted the younger generation of security agency staff are not to be trusted in the wake of thousands of US intelligence documents being released to Wikileaks.

In an interview with the BBC he said:

"I don't mean to judge them at all, but this group of millennials and related groups simply have different understandings of the words loyalty and secrecy and transparency than certainly my generation did".

Australian Centre for Cyber Security Professor Greg Austin said he does.

"When Edward Snowden went public with his leaks in 2013 in our organisation in New York, we did a bit of survey and we found that all the young people thought [Snowden] had done the right thing and all the people of my generation thought he'd done the wrong thing," Professor Austin said.

"We just really stopped on that question because it was quite confronting. You can sort of imagine the more mature people were ... fuming about the Snowden leaks and the others were saying 'he's got a point'.

"Michael Hayden is one of the most serious and well-informed people in the United States to be talking about this subject so I credit his point of view."

Director of the Australian Centre for Cyber Security Jill Slay said a new report from Frost and Sullivan set to be released next week found millennials working in cyber security needed more job satisfaction, better opportunities and pay, and wanted to be heard.

"Organisations need to adjust to take on these perspectives," Professor Slay said.

"My generation feel bound by [the] Official Secrets Act ... this generation values individuality."

Professor Austin said there were instances of cyber crime right here in Australia.

"There have been eight [people] convicted for cyber-related offences at the federal level in the last eight years and three of the eight were Australian public servants," he said.

"And [from] what I recall, all younger than 40."

"I think Snowden has a huge effect," Professor Austin said.

"The recent movie shows him in a very positive light."

That's a reference to the film Snowden, which depicts the former NSA contractor's leak of thousands of classified documents in 2013.

The film is directed by Oliver Stone and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Snowden.

Julian Assange's story has also been told on screen.

Benedict Cumberbatch played him in the 2013 film The Fifth Estate and Australian actor Alex Williams portrayed him in the 2012 biographical drama Underground: The Julian Assange Story.

In short, yes.

"Well the information age brings with it completely new attitudes to secrecy and privacy, and that's the reality we face, and people who've grown up with open access and transparency of the sort that's available through the internet and mobile devices really simply just have a different emotional relationship with information and privacy," Professor Austin said.

"And in designing secrecy arrangements within Government we have to take that into account.

"We need to bear in mind 50 to 100 years ago young people also had a more cavalier attitude to information.

"And the best example of that are the Cambridge spies ... but governments definitely do have to take this into account but also corporations and private citizens.

"The old conceptions of privacy have gone out the door."

Professor Austin said Snowden's agenda to uncover lies told in Congress by senior US officials was not inherently liberal.

"So the what I mean by that is that people haven't become in general more liberal they've become more conservative," he said.

"Snowden wasn't out there on the barricades for a more liberal approach to United States society, he was out there to defend well-established principles of the United States political system.

"So we can paint that as a liberal agenda, but it's not really.

"I think we do have to take account of the fact that as of today the information age favours the more conservative political movement and not the more liberal political movements."

Pretty big.

No longer are leaks a handful of pieces of paper.

"The scale and scope of the information that can be released in one leak can threaten the political legitimacy of the highest levels of government," Professor Austin said.

So, should average citizens be worried?

Probably not.

"The good news is the average citizen doesn't fall victim to it," he said.

"But people in public life, celebrities and public officials have a new reality to deal with that's very different and very demanding."

And for millennials, it means government agencies and businesses might hold some scepticism with giving sensitive information to younger staff.

Professor Slay warned some millennials didn't understand the long-term ramifications of leaking sensitive information.

"You'll never be allowed in the circle of trust if you're ever seen to breach those," she said.

Topics: computers-and-technology, hacking, government-and-politics, australia

First posted March 09, 2017 12:35:43

See the article here:
The Edward Snowden effect? Millennial view on data a concern for government and business - ABC Online

The former CIA director is blaming millennials for the existence of leaks but his ignorance is part of the problem – The Independent

Millennialshave had to get used to being characterised as lazy, selfish and narcissistic. Now this much maligned generation face the more serious accusation of being traitors to their country.

In the wake of this week's Wikileaks dump of top secret files, a former CIA director has broken cover to point the finger at the millennial generation for the growing trend in damaging security blunders.

"I dont mean to judge them all," Michael Hayden told BBC2's Newsnight on Thursday, "But this group of millennialssimply have different understandings of the words loyalty, secrecy and transparency than my generation did."

Just so everyone is in no doubt who he is talking about, Hayden namedEdward Snowden and Chelsea Manning as the worst cases of millennial treachery.

"So we bring these people into the agency good Americans all, I can only assume but again, culturally, they have different instincts than the people who made the decision to hire them and we may be running into this different cultural approach."

So has Hayden helpfully identified a glitch in the cultural makeup of the millennial generation or is he simply looking for a new scapegoat for an old problem?

In the digital age the skills of the professional gamer and amateur hacker have become highly prized assets among the CIA and GCHQ who actively recruit from the geek generation for their code breakers.

This is the reason why so many millennials work for internet companies like Google and Facebook or join hacking groups like Anonymous and Lulz or even a whistleblowers' portal (such as Wikileaks).

But it is hardly the fault of the millennial generation that because hacking is a young person's game their talents are suddenly in demand.

Edward Snowden addresses Facebook fake news claims

The truth is treachery is not a new phenomenon that can be laid at the door of one particular generation.

Britain and America's history is littered with cases of young (and not so young) spies who have committed acts of treachery or whistleblowing (depending on your point of view) for all kinds of reasons.

Nevertheless, motives such as idealism and ideology do seem to have played a greater influence over younger spies.

Britain's most notorious gang of double agents, the Cambridge Spy Ring, were all twenty-somethings when they started passing on secrets to the Soviets in the 1930s and 1940s.

More recently David Shayler and Annie Machon, who blew the whistle on an MI5 plot to kill Colonel Gaddafi, were only in their late 20s when they first felt the stirrings of betrayal in the 1990s.

But it is not just twenty-somethings who commit acts of treachery. The most famous American double agent, responsible for the deaths of at least ten American agents, was well into his 40s when he started passing secrets to the KGB.

Aldrich Ames compromised more CIA "assets" than any other mole in history until Robert Hanssen's arrest seven years later in 2001. Hanssen, a career CIA officer, was 39 when he started his Soviet spying career.

Perhaps this shows that when it comes to treachery no generation is more culpable than any other.

What Hayden and the rest of his baby boomer generation forget is that in the age of the internet, secrets are much harder to keep while the tools of the whistleblower and the leaker are capable of causing catastrophic damage.

The security services in the UK and America have sophisticated vetting procedures which are supposed to spot high-minded young men and women who might one day put principle before country.

But history shows us that no system of secrecy is perfect. Demonising a new generation for one of the oldest sins of all is a desperate attempt to avoid confronting the urgent problem of protecting state secrets in a digital age.

Robert Verkaik is the author of "Jihadi John, the Making of a Terrorist"

Excerpt from:
The former CIA director is blaming millennials for the existence of leaks but his ignorance is part of the problem - The Independent

Edward Snowden’s Take On Vault7 – Benzinga

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks exposed the government surveillance of American citizens through standard household products, and Edward Snowden wasnt surprised.

In a spurt of Twitter Inc (NASDAQ: TWTR) activity, Snowden verified the authenticity of the WikiLeaks documents referencing government programs and office names known only to cleared insiders.

He outlined a brief thesis noting that most alarming feature in the 8,000-page package is the enduring security hole intentionally left by the Central Intelligence Agency for continued access.

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

The breach in both Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL)s iOS and Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL)s Android operating system renders smartphone users exposed to non-government attacks.

Why is this dangerous? Because until closed, any hacker can use the security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world. https://t.co/xK0aILAdFI

Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

In a tone generally vindicating conspiracy theorists, Snowden said the documents verify the U.S. governments hushed efforts to keep U.S. software unsafe.

Related Link: Here's All Of Wikileaks' Bombshells Since It Was Founded 10 Years Ago

Related Link: Tech, Political Figures Draw Battle Lines Over Apple ______ Image Credit: Edward Snowden [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Posted-In: News Politics Topics Legal Events Tech Media General Best of Benzinga

2017 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Read more from the original source:
Edward Snowden's Take On Vault7 - Benzinga

The Surprising Reason Edward Snowden Won’t Get a Fair Trial If He Returns to the States – POPSUGAR

Regardless of your opinion on Edward Snowden, his ability to access a fair and free trial should concern every American. On Feb. 26, whistle-blower-turned-activist Daniel Ellsberg, Snowden, and KQED host Scott Shaffer came together for a conversation in San Francisco. Their discussion revealed some surprising truths about national security, including what exactly Snowden means when he says he won't get a fair trial if he returns to the United States.

Snowden, who leaked evidence that the National Security Agency had implemented a widespread mass surveillance program while he was working as a private contractor for the government in 2013, has long requested a fair trial. While many consider his actions treasonous, Snowden maintains that he released the trove of information to journalists at The Guardian because the government's program was illegally targeting citizens.

Snowden has also fielded criticism about his reluctance to return to the United States from Russia, where he is currently living under asylum, to face charges against him. Those charges include the unauthorized communication of national defense information and the willful communication of classified intelligence information to an unauthorized person. Snowden says that until he receives assurance from the United States government that he will receive a fair trial, he won't return and he has evidence he claims proves why he wouldn't.

Ellsberg's case is the first to demonstrate Snowden's point, as does Chelsea Manning's. In 1971, while working as an analyst for the RAND Corporation advising then-President Nixon on Vietnam War strategy, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times and The Washington Post. The documents revealed that the American government under President John F. Kennedy and especially under President Lyndon B. Johnson had repeatedly lied to Congress and the public about expanding operations in Vietnam and the war's stalemate, which was costing lives.

After the now-named Pentagon Papers were published, Ellsberg was charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 for receiving national defense documents, communicating national defense documents, and retaining national defense documents. While his case was eventually thrown out because Nixon had authorized the infamous "plumbers" to illegally gather evidence on Ellsberg, his trial revealed the discomforting tenants of the seemingly antiquated law. Ellsberg was the first American to be charged under the Espionage Act, and his case set the precedent for future presidents to charge would-be whistle-blowers. It placed leaking documents or information, no matter how justified, on the same level as selling state secrets to another country.

During the trial, Ellsberg's lawyer asked him why he had leaked the documents to the press in an attempt to allow his client to explain that he wanted to prevent unnecessary loss of life in a seemingly unwinnable war. But the government prosecutor immediately objected to the question, citing it as irrelevant to the case. The judge did not permit Ellsberg to answer why he did what he did. The judge said it did not pertain to the charges according to the law, which describes the action of any type of leak as intended to cause injury to the state and leaves no room for the defense to suggest other intentions. Ellsberg also recounted this experience in an article for The Guardian, which argued Snowden's chances of a fair trial are slim.

Chelsea Manning's case presented the same challenges or, depending on who you ask, flaws with the law. Manning is one of the seven people who the Obama administration brought Espionage Act charges against after she leaked a trove of documents on the Afghanistan War to Wikileaks. Like Ellsberg, Manning was prevented from explaining her purpose for leaking the papers during her trial. "The military judge in that case did not let Manning or her lawyer argue her intent, the lack of damage to the US, overclassification of the cables or the benefits of the leaks until she was already found guilty," Ellsberg wrote in 2014.

Despite the fact that Ellberg's and Manning's leaks did not cause any deaths Ellsberg's arugably saved lives their purpose for revealing such information is legally considered immaterial; a crucial puzzle piece of their cases (and future cases) was not heard by a jury. While this is technically permissible as dictated by the law, it does not seem fair, which is why Snowden is so adamant about ensuring he will receive a fair trial. In fact, Snowden said that his request for a fair trial from American officials was repeatedly denied the only promise they can make is that he won't be tortured if he turns himself in. Snowden laughed as he shared the government's offer with the audience.

Both Snowden and Ellsberg insisted that the Espionage Act must be reformed to protect whistle-blowers. So long as the 1917 act remains written to preserve the government's interests, whistle-blowers will have no choice but to break the law and circumvent avenues for legally calling attention to government wrongdoing. Those paths are demonstrably ineffective and do not protect anonymity.

It's worth pointing out that Snowden is also insistent that he is not a hero; he maintains that there are no heroes, only heroic actions. "Whistle-blowers are elected by circumstance," Snowden said of his decision to leak classified documents. Snowden also reiterated during the talk that he does not regret his actions. "Legality is not a substitute for morality," Snowden told the audience. Indeed, just because something is legal does not mean it's right.

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Go here to see the original:
The Surprising Reason Edward Snowden Won't Get a Fair Trial If He Returns to the States - POPSUGAR