SXSW: Edward Snowden Swipes At NSA

Nerval's Lobster writes "In a Google Hangout with an auditorium full of South by Southwest attendees, government whistleblower (and former NSA employee) Edward Snowden suggested that encrypted communication should become more ubiquitous and easier to use for the majority of Internet denizens. 'The way we interact with [encrypted email and communications] is not good,' he said from somewhere within Russia, where he resides under the conditions of a one-year asylum. 'It needs to be out there, it needs to happen automatically, it needs to happen seamlessly.' For his part, Snowden still believes that companies should store user data that contributes directly to their respective business: 'It's not that you can't collect any data, you should only collect the data and hold it as long as necessary for the operation of the business.' He also couldn't resist some choice swipes at his former employer, accusing high-ranking intelligence officials Michael Hayden and Keith Alexander of harming the world's cyber-security—and by extension, United States national security—by emphasizing offensive operations over the defense of communications. 'America has more to lose than anyone else when every attack succeeds,' Snowden said. 'When you are the one country that has sort of a vault that's more full than anyone else's, it makes no sense to be attacking all day.'"

Comments

Re:Edward Snowden - A thief

[Anonymous Coward]

How very objective of you. You must have all the particulars of this case to have judged him so thoroughly.

I hope someone treats you the same way in your future.

Re:Edward Snowden - A thief

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you american? Because if you are, you may be overlooking the fact that to *some* people your founding fathers were themselves traitors and thiefs...

What exact laws were broken?

[CohibaVancouver]

As a Canadian, what I'm not clear on is whether there are exact American laws dictating what the NSA can and cannot do? If there are laws, and they have been broken, can anyone be charged, and if not, why not?

I realize the standard answers involve political interference, corruption blah blah blah, but on a purely academic level is there a means to charge anyone with a crime?

Re:What exact laws were broken?

[rlp]

Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

Re:What exact laws were broken?

[CanHasDIY]

Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

In other words, OP, the NSA has every legal right to spy on you without giving you due process, but has absolutely zero right to spy on Americans without a properly issued warrant.

Re:What exact laws were broken?

[IamTheRealMike]

Lots already. Even if you ignore the Constitution, people running the NSA and general security state have been caught lying to Congress (a crime), lying to the kangeroo FISA court meant to be overseeing them (contempt of court), lying to regular courts about whether defendents were being informed about the origin of evidence against them (more contempt of court), violating FISA court orders (more contempt), and re-interpreting the PATRIOT Act in such a way that even the guy who wrote the damn thing was shocked - that's just normal law breaking: you aren't supposed to be able to "reinterpret" laws however you see fit.

But when you ask "is there a way to charge anyone with a crime", I think you already know that the answer is yes just because there are so many vaguely worded laws in the USA that basically anyone can be charged with some kind of crime. What matters is whether you actually ARE charged, and that's an entirely politically driven decision.

That's the situation in the USA. In the UK the laws are much worse and much vaguer, believe it or not, to the extent that there's basically no functioning oversight at all - the UK equivalent of FISA is not only not a court, it's actually staffed by anonymous people! There's no way to find out who even sits on it. And they have never ruled against the intelligence services even once: FISA Court has at least made a token effort to appear useful. RIPA, the law that is claimed to authorise such collection, is so vaguely worded as to be basically useless as a law - it would appear to authorise practically anything. And the Prime Minister, unlike Obama, has rejected the very notion that there might be a debate at all - simply asserting that if GCHQ does it, it must be by definition be OK.

So even though the situation in the USA is dire, it's actually not as bad as it could be.

Not an employee

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction, Snowden was not an employee of the NSA, Snowden was a contractor.

And yes, there is a huge difference.

Modern Goosestepping and Appeasement

[bussdriver]

Few people ever really think about how they would have acted if they were German citizens around the 1930s. Most people would do nothing but move with the crowd and many would get caught up in the propaganda.

Few resisted or ran away, because it was easier to fall in line. Same situation today. The parallels exist for those who can think about it without being too influenced by the herd. We are encouraged to vilify the people who oppose the authority and to dogmatically (and thoughtlessly) adhere to authority. Orwell said it, in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. We are at that point, most people can see that both parties are functionally dead and it's all one big scam - with the people pointing it out being marginalized and the people making REAL impact are treated as insurgents (because truth alone is not enough in the information overload age, it has to have bite to get noticed.)

Godwin's law is for simpletons and Nazi sympathizers; prohibiting learning from history more than it stops the ignorant name calling rants (while true that the trolls seem hopeless to educate should we give up all chances to apply history because of them?)

Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor

[Kazoo the Clown]

This guy's afflicted with the "good government" syndrome. His country can do no wrong. Love it or leave it. Just like a good little Nazi.

Rearranging deck chairs on RMS Titanic

[WaffleMonster]

Google, Twitter and Facebook adding SSL is useless in face of third party doctrine effectively declaring you have no right to any privacy (e.g. "tangible thing") online even in communications between individuals.

We need viable alternatives to massive centralized systems controlled by a handful of multi-billion dollar media and advertising companies.

On state attacking the way I see it more attacks from all parties the more pressure on all to deploy secure systems... this is ultimately in everyone's best interests. Closer the day when cost for a systems exploit approaches infinity where only viable attacks are physical force, social engineering and coercion the better for all.

Low intensity "cyber war" is better than complacency yielding brittle systems contributing to some cheese laden Hollywood doomsday plot line.

Unlimited Asylum

[qpqp]

Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and won't send him back home.

(http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/ - of all sources...)

Re:Not just a thief, but an actual traitor

[Travis Mansbridge]

Ultimately, nothing within the NSA leaks actually show any abuse of power.

Right, like looking at non-criminal targets' sexually explicit webcam photos.