Edward Snowden - Playing Superman in a World He Doesn't Fully Comprehend

Truth is sometimes hard to find. Wikileaks lately published information, courtesy Edward Snowden, about the US spying on the EU. Nobody has reported the whole context or extent of that spying, or what information was gathered, or to what end. There are plenty of dramatic headlines but very few specifics. Also absent is information supplied by human rights activists from other countries about the spying their governments indulge in. 

So it looks as if the US is the only big bad wolf in the world. And that’s the real story. Which is a lot more dramatic than a scenario where EU, African and Latin American countries are all spying on each other and China and Russia are spying on everybody. 

Does it justify what the US has done? I have no idea, because I don’t know enough about what they’ve done and what is generally accepted at those levels in all countries. John Kerry, when asked to comment on allegations that the US has spied on the EU, refused to comment specifically until he had studied all the evidence, which was refreshing to hear. But he did say “every country in the world that is engaged in international affairs of national security undertakes lots of activities to protect its national security.” 

As for Edward Snowden, he continues to vilify the US, yet seeks asylum in Russia and China, amongst other countries. It’s clear what China’s position is. Vladimir Putin stayed out of the fray for a while, but he’s recently said that he’ll grant asylum if Snowden stops publishing damaging information about “our American partners”. Which he acknowledged would never happen as Snowden sees himself as a human rights activist.

Ecuador has backed right off. President Correa granted Snowden temporary travel documents to get out of Hong Kong and fly to Russia. He initially said Ecuador would decide the asylum request on its own merits and make a decision independent of foreign influence. Then he said that Snowden had to be in the country to start the process and there were no guarantees as to the outcome. He followed that up with an acknowledgment that he’d spoken to Joe Biden who was very polite and respectful. I’d love to have been listening in on that conversation. Perhaps Mr. Biden reminded him of how dependent Ecuador is on US trade.

Whatever was said, Correa’s latest statement was an admission that he acted rashly in granting those temporary travel documents. And he now says that to even process the asylum request could take months.

The net seems to be closing in on Snowden. He appears to be well under Assange’s wing now and speaks about how his life is in danger, just as Assange always has. I always thought there was a tinge of paranoia in that. 

Assange had a lot of connections and power but even he is mostly forgotten now. And what did he achieve? Meanwhile, those assault charges in Iceland still hang over his head. He says they were trumped up and it was all a conspiracy plot to get him back to the US. Maybe he’s right, but it doesn’t totally ring true. Men who did it always say they didn’t. He speaks about being a hero but he isn’t really. He’s just a sad man who never gets enough sun who’s on the run.

Snowden has nobody. He’s in the limelight now and a lot of the world thinks of him as a hero but his actions probably won’t lead to any change either. And much of the world isn’t convinced that what he did was heroic. 

It’s hard not to have compassion for him, though. The leaders of the countries he’s turned to who happily betray their own people don’t give a damn about him or about truth. At heart he believes he’s freeing the world but he isn’t really. This isn’t about the pursuit of truth or impacting on infringement of human rights. If it was, Snowden would have spoken out loudly against Russia and China. But he happily turned a blind eye to their behaviour - because he thought they might be useful to him, I guess. 

So it’s about the pursuit of half the truth. Which is no truth at all and speaks more of an agenda than anything else. I believe this is really about a young man with a childishly naïve understanding of international relationships playing Superman. Not fully comprehending that in the real world he’s entered, his cloak, more a fantasy for him than an absolute reality, can’t protect him.

Further reading: 

New York Times: Snowden applies for asylum in Russia

Reuters: Snowden threatens new US leaks; asks numerous countries for asylum

CBS News: Former NSA, CIA director: "the USA does conduct espionage"

Big Brother isn't NSA and the US Government, it's Google and Facebook

When I first heard of George Orwell’s 1984 it sounded so science fiction and beyond my capacity to grasp as a potential reality that I dismissed it. I can’t even remember if I read it. I knew very little of the sinister world at large, and in my world the internet didn’t exist. I could conceive of societal over-management in a distant sort of way but I imagined that if a Big Brother kind of scenario ever came into play it would be recognizably science fiction. And it would, of course, be about a corrupt government. 

I was wrong about it all, and it seems I’m not alone. The world has gone beserk with the exposure of NSA privacy invasion, masses of people quoting George Orwell, predicting gloom and doom. Our independence is over; Big Brother Government controls your every move.  

There’s something perfectly Hollywood about it all. Cloak and dagger shadowy organizations, spies, international relations, diplomatic nightmares, global chases from the US to China to Russia to Havanna.

But the real Big Brother – or a fraternity of them – has been operating in our lives and homes for ages. They did what all exploiters do. Groomed us. Here, you can have this for free. We’re doing it because we love you. That how can we help you? transmogrified over time from into how can we exploit you and earn billions of bucks? We all found out about it and had a hissy fit. But we didn’t stop using those products. 

There’s nothing science fiction about it. Nothing out of the ordinary. Not anymore. Only because we’ve become slowly inured to how much of ourselves we give away, and now we're kind of hooked on the idea that unless everybody knows everything about us we’re alone and isolated. 

We still hold onto the concept of the value of privacy. But the reality of what preserving your privacy involves in today’s tech world - being cut off from some potential friend somewhere - scares us. We give ourselves away every second of the day because we somehow believe it’s the only way we can get more and more connected. There was a time when the idea of having having your privacy invaded made you feel naked. Now living in a cocoon where your privacy is utterly protected makes you feel exposed.

I read a great article on BuzzFeed/CNN, "10 ways you give up data without knowing it". It’s a kind of shortened Orwellian type of expose on privacy. I followed one of the links to a pretty detailed inventory of info about how advertisers on Facebook can manipulate their friends, friends of their friends, college students, different age groups, nationalities, genders, occupations, interests, you name it.  

It’s done in the form of Q & A and is of course selling Facebook advertising. Very seductive. If you’ve got something to sell that is. It's a bit of a shock if you're on the receiving end. Nowhere on the page could I see a question like do people supply this information willingly and knowingly? 

We still hold onto the Big Brother idea that it’s the government we have to worry about; that it will control us in a recognisably sinister and science-fiction kind of way. So when Edward Snowden exposes NSA surveillance information everybody throws up their hands in a riot of protest. We know what this is! But the mundane reality of it is that the NSA doesn’t analyse all the info in detail, they simply mine it for specific alerts. They sure don’t use it to manipulate citizens. And the point of it isn’t mass control, but to try and control terrorism. They don’t want to know every intimate detail about us; they want to know whether we know any terrorists or not. 

I guess we focus on the NSA as public enemy number one because the average Joe doesn’t think its work is useful. That’s because they’ve never had to personally pay for their security. The US – and its allies – have usually chosen the military option and most of the casualties have been suffered by the enemy.  

Now the US has a leader who seems hell-bent on peace and not war, but still remains realistically alert to security risks. The only problem with the choice he's put before US citizens is that the more peaceful solution requires them to pay something. For their own security benefits. Personally, given the choice between some innocent child getting its limbs blown off while I sleep peacefully at home, and having the NSA collect my data to see if I'm cavorting with terrorists, it's a no brainer. It’s hard for me to understand why everybody doesn’t clamour to make that same choice.

In real terms this NSA surveillance isn’t much of a payment, not if one is realistic about it. But in a world where media influence has blurred the lines between truth and lies, where politicians and giant corporations are expert fear-mongers, where we get our information from movies and TV series, realism isn’t a strong point. 

Meanwhile the real Big Brother fraternity continue to really control us more and more every day. They have the key to our lives and they can let anybody in to prowl around any time they like. Whether we know about it or not, whether we want it or not. Contrary to the NSA they do want to know intimate details about us; they target each of us very specifically. 

We know it's real, what Facebook and Google do. Why don't we rise up in global protest? Because they’re useful to us. When we advertise, do we care anymore what people have had to give up so we can get to them? Not really. So in fact, we welcome the Big Brother Frat with open arms. And while we’re waving our fists at a red herring that attracts us because of the drama, the real enemy is sucking the will-power out of us through a giant umbilical cord inserted into our Achilles heel.

If you want to opt out of being ad-targeted by Google, click here. To opt out of Facebook targeted ads close your account. Click here for their reasons why they need to continue with targeted advertising and can’t give you the option to opt out. It’s all about how much they love you and how can we help you? They focus on all the things they don’t do and deftly avoid the central question, which is Can I stop my personal and intimate information and that of my friends, my family, my children, being used by Facebook?

 

Because the unspoken answer is unapologetically and categorically No. 

The Outrage Over NSA Surveillance - Should American Pay for their Own Security?

The haves in Western society have gotten used to being able to have their cake and eat it, and to not have to pay for the consequences of their actions, and even for their freedom. Somebody else pays, but that doesn’t trouble us too much.

In times of recession the have-less slip down the ladder dangerously close to the have-nots, but in boom times so far enough have recovered enough to keep the system going, despite that they’re paying too high a price. Working for wages that don’t reflect their contribution so that corporations and their shareholders can profit. Spending beyond their means so that banks can make a profit.

And then everybody kind of becomes unaccountable. The have-nots of course pay for everything and over time that group gets bigger and bigger. But a lot of people look the other way. It won’t happen to me. Even if it did happen once, it won’t happen again. It seems to be human nature. Until you’re down and you just can’t get up again. Then you realize, I have the power to change this. And then the whole world changes for you.

But those people are in the minority. Just as it happens at an individual level, it does with societies. The majority believe that what they do in their lives from moment to moment and the choices they make have nothing to do with the trouble that their country gets into. Of course they’re right in some ways. Leaders fabricate wars to oust inconvenient rulers or parties or squander budgets. Politicians steal the money and/or do what the wealthy and powerful want them to do. Bankers bankrupt entire economies and get away with it: correction, are rewarded for it.

But none of it could happen if every citizen actively participated in elections, which means finding out everything there is to find about candidates before they’re elected. Then communicating with them on everything they do. Protesting every single time they step out of line.

Some do it more than others, but the majority of us wait until something really disastrous happens then we wait for the next election and we vote differently, unless we allow ourselves to get seduced by bland election promises or we’re blinded by our prejudices. We’d rather hold onto them than properly inform ourselves.

And when an unjust war is started on the pretext of protecting our freedom, we accept it and look away from the fact that somebody else is paying for that real or imagined freedom. The soldiers, for one. Innocent civilians for another, just wanting to live their lives in peace, learn their own lessons in their own way, being smashed to pieces. Maybe dying, maybe surviving to live the rest of their lives in hell, their family, town and country destroyed.

Americans are being given the choice of actually paying the price themselves for their own security now, with the Obama Administration’s intelligence gathering. Isn’t it better than making others pay? Creating a fake war on a false pretext and bombing the hell out of a country? Conning US soldiers who get physically and mentally maimed or destroyed into believing they did something noble? Conning parents into believing they're sacrificing their children for something great, so that they'll  encourage the rest of the children to give themselves up like so much fodder? Illegally holding 'suspects' and illegally torturing them, treating them like animals?

For the war in Iraq the US military sent its missionaries into poor urban areas and targeted young men who had no jobs, no resources, no opportunities. Congressmen and Senators didn't send their own sons to fight. In fact they made sure their sons didn't fight. That’s not the worst kind of intrusion into privacy?

With this latest intelligence gathering story, the real intrusion on privacy would be if content were being mined which it isn't. And a much greater threat to individuals is when violent response, most of it inappropriate, fosters more hatred and more terrorism. When the superwealthy and giant corporations get away with not contributing adequately to society. When wages are too low so profits can be high and shareholders and CEOs can make a fortune. When a Republican governor squanders $24 million to further his personal agenda and says he didn't know what it cost and he didn't care. Shortly after he had cut $10 million from after-care programs in poor schools, $12 million from hospital charity, and refused to spend $25 million on early voting.

In comparison to the alternatives, intelligence gathering is a peaceful and non-violent method of dealing with the terrorist threat. It would be great if there was no threat. But there is one and something has to be done. The question is simply, who’s going to pay for the security? The people who receive it, or those who don't?

What Price Freedom? President Obama Defends NSA Surveillance

There’s been a riot of protest about the Obama Administration’s invasion of privacy lately, with the media milking it for all it’s worth. Protestors see it as the end of America and American freedom, the confirmation that the US is a police state, proof that President Obama is a thug, illustration that all your emails and your internet activity are being read and filed, andyou’re your telephone calls listened to and saved.
  
One wonders if anybody has thought about how many employees it would take to do all of that,  how long it would take, and how physically impossible it actually is, considering that we’re talking about all the phone and email activity of 313 900 000 people. 

Some research cited that on average Americans spend 7 hours a month talking on the phone. That’s 2 197 300 000 hours a month that would have to be listened to. Which would take one person 91 554 166 days to cover, listening 24 hours a day. So the Obama Administration must be employing millions of people just to listen into phone calls. 

What about emails? The figures are too astronomic to even contemplate, and the whole scenario is unutterably absurd.

The truth is that the content of phone calls isn’t being listened to, just who’s making them and who to. Which still doesn’t mean that every single call is being scrutinized. The information is mined for alerts. To catch terrorists. And the internet data of Americans isn’t being scrutinized at all. Plus, the reality of intelligence gathering is probably nowhere near as glamorous or sinister as many seem to fear, and as Hollywood has projected. It’s hard to separate fiction from fact most of the time, which I think is partly why so many people are going ballistic.

President Obama is keeping his head, however. He pointed out that surveillance is nothing new and that society sometimes has to make compromise if it wants ultimate protection. It makes sense to me. 

There seem to be two options to counter terror: intelligence or military invasion. The latter makes other people pay for your freedom. It maims or destroys - mentally and physically - huge numbers of US soldiers and innocent civilians, and enables illegal kidnap and torture. It’s conveniently far from home – except for the soldiers and their families, of course – and everybody can get on pretty much with their lives, adapting to paranoia, hoping a bomb doesn't blow up in their back yard. 

Not letting themselves really consider what this option is doing to innocent people. Not really thinking that their freedom comes at a horrible price, paid by somebody else.

But it creates more enemies, generates incendiary hatred and fosters more terrorist attacks. The  military industrial complex continues to make a profit, becomes more powerful, more controlling of politicians. That option will never free America from terrorism. Violence begets more violence. 

Intelligence, on the other hand, doesn’t maim or destroy anybody so integrity is preserved as well as lives and sanity. It doesn't make more enemies, and it has a chance of succeeding. That's a no-brainer.

In 2009 US intelligence analysts were alerted by an email which they traced to a young man, Najibullah Zazi, who asked an Al Qaeda operative how to make a flour-based bomb. Later, he sent another email saying the marriage was ready. He was traced and later confessed to having plotted to bomb New York subways. I find that both sobering and encouraging. 

One of the critics of this invasion of privacy said that the failures to catch terrorists far outnumber the successes and concluded that the intelligence gathering was a waste of time.  But that's the nature of success, that's how it happens in reality. You keep trying even when you fail, and you always fail more times than you succeed. But you do eventually succeed and your successes are noteworthy.
And I guess to the New York inhabitants who took the subway and were saved from losing body parts and/or their lives, the surveillance wasn’t a waste of time at all. 

I know that if I'd been one of those who would have been dismembered by a terrorist bomb if it hadn't been intercepted by intelligence I'd be grateful, not critical.

In World War II, people sacrificed their lives for freedom from fascism. Now all people are being asked to sacrifice is a tiny bit of freedom, so their lives and integrity can be preserved. It doesn’t seem like a very big price to ask, to me.