General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Senate Kills Surveillance Reform and Glenn Greenwald Shrugs
The Senate yesterday buriedat least for nowsurveillance reform, when Republican senators refused to allow the current draft of the measure to proceed to a vote. Glenn Greenwald has an interesting reaction to the legislative death of the grandiosely-named USA Freedom Act: It doesnt matter. He writes, it has been clear from the start that U.S. legislation is not going to impose meaningful limitations on the NSAs powers of mass surveillance, at least not fundamentally. Change, rather, is going to come from elsewhere: from the posture of the technology companies, from individual use of encryption, from policy decisions of countries other than the United States, and from court proceedings:
I find this argument a little perplexing coming from the man who considered the NSAs bulk metadata program to be so important and so alarming that it was the very first program he broke in all of the documents Edward Snowden gave him.
Metadata cant really be encrypted; its the information used to deliver content and thus has to be readable, after all. And the law as currently interpreted permits NSA to collect it in bulk. If one thinks this activity is offensive and important, one should not be too dismissive of legislative action to curtail it. Yet Greenwald suddenly does not sound quite so alarmed by the possibility that NSA would retain the authority to bulk collect metadata:
There is a real question about whether the defeat of this bill is good, bad, or irrelevant. To begin with, it sought to change only one small sliver of NSA mass surveillance (domestic bulk collection of phone records under section 215 of the Patriot Act) while leaving completely unchanged the primary means of NSA mass surveillance, which takes place under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, based on the lovely and quintessentially American theory that all that matters are the privacy rights of Americans (and not the 95% of the planet called non-Americans).
Huh. Theres a lot in this short passage to unpack, but focus for now just on Greenwalds contemplation of the possibility that killing the USA Freedom Act might be a good thing and his dismissal of the metadata program as merely a small sliver of NSA mass surveillance. He even goes so far as to dismiss the end of bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 as no more than mildly positive. I dont recall his reaction to the underlying program, at the time he revealed it, as only that bulk telephony metadata collection was mildly negative. I recall a slightly more breathless, outraged response. So what then are we to make of his now-casual dismissal of a bill to curtail the programmuch less the entire reform mechanism, which is to say legislation, that would enable that curtailing? How can bulk metadata collection be an intolerable outrage and ending the 215 program be merely mildly positive or even a net negative?
One possibility is that Greenwald doesnt know how to take yes for an answer. He is outraged by bulk metadata collection. Congress contemplates ending bulk metadata collection. So it suddenly fades in his mind in importance relative to outrages Congress is not addressing.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/11/the-senate-kills-surveillance-reform-and-glenn-greenwald-shrugs/
If you people don't want to believe me, or want to say I'm just too blinded by my Greenwald hatred, Wittes makes my case for me...
Or will you try to say now that Wittes of all people is some paid Pentagon authoritarian shill??
Andy823
(11,495 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Should have voted for that thing...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's always been about manufacturing outrage against Obama.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Maybe he doesn't like imperial national security state presidents.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You want to believe that but it just isn't so.
He has no problem with several completely imperial national security state countries and leaders, such as Russia for instance, and China, one of whom is in the midst of an unprovoked war of aggression, the other has been consistently bullying its neighbors in the east and south China seas. Where is Greenwald's outrage about that?
No, the evidence suggests he is a Libertarian who is a negative nationalist with the US as the object of his negative nationalism.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Spazito
(50,365 posts)no surprise there. The surprise would have been if he actually practiced what he preaches.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)claims collection on US persons without a specific search warrant.
The other programs Greenwald has leaked reveal techniques and programs, but those other leaks did not indicate they are actually used on US persons. The actual leaked documents don't say they were. Instead, Greenwald has heavily implied they are used on US persons and lets everyone else take it from there.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I read the blog post, and that's pretty much the sum of it. Greenwald doesn't believe meaningful spy state reform is going to come out of the US Congress. I agree with him. And while Greenwald has strong and animated opinions, is it the job of a journalist to come up with the fix, or is it the job of a journalist to expose what's happening? I say he's not responsible for the former, and he's got the latter covered in spades.
But regarding this bill that was just defeated, he's right. I don't see what's controversial about him refusing to be led by the nose so he could pretend that congress might have realistically done something meaningful.