Skip to main content

who's on team edward?

so i tweeted this the other day:
sparkle sparkle

"ffs, edward snowden is not the issue!"

that was in response to the sudden shift in media priorities from the rightness or wrongness of the american government dropping in for a peek-a-boo at their citizens' personal exchanges to talking about the man who leaked details of the operation to the guardian newspaper. is he exaggerating the extent of the problem in order to get media attention? does he fancy himself a rebel in the mould of julian assange? is he trying to make a political point against a president he doesn't like [snowden is apparently a libertarian republican who supported the candidacy of ron paul]? should we, the onlookers/ victims treat him as a hero or traitor?

the point of my tweet was to throw my opinion out there: we shouldn't give a shit. because ultimately, what we should be talking about [and don't think that this kind of program is limited to the united states, just because that's the one that got leaked to the media] is whether or not we are willing to allow our elected representatives to appoint or hire groups to monitor our personal and heretofore private communications in the name of national and international security.

since virtually every aspect of the program is in dispute, it's virtually impossible to talk about the specifics of what was recorded, retained and used to what end. so what we're left with is a very general discussion of safety vs. liberty. but as much as it's a very general discussion, it's also a very realistic, practical one. it's about how much you trust people. not just the government. everybody.

and that's where edward snowden becomes very much the issue.

you can argue about the improved safety provided by monitoring web activities, emails, phone calls and text messages all you want. maybe they have helped. in fact, it's kind of hard to believe that they wouldn't help to some degree, provided you know where to look. but the fact is that edward snowden, a high school dropout who got hired at a contractee of the u.s. government was able, after three months on the job [still technically within the probation period in canada, although i don't know how that works in other countries- my point is that it's not long to be on a job], to download some pretty sensitive and incriminating files and apparently had access to this entire program. after three months.

yes, edward snowden's response to this was to grab as much information as he could and hand it over to the media to expose what he felt was an invasion of privacy. but he could have just as easily handed it over to the mob. edward snowden could have been just about anyone and apparently, the government's methods of vetting employees could use a little upgrading. i've been at my job for over a year and i'm not allowed access to our budget files. if i need to look at something, i get an electronic copy mailed to me so that there's no danger of me messing with the master document. and i don't think that's a lack of trust, either. i think that's just the realisation that it's not the best idea to give everyone the keys to the kingdom.

so the questions we're asking shouldn't stop with "am i comfortable with the government mining my personal communications" but should logically continue to "am i comfortable with anyone that my government might contract and any of their employees having access to my personal communications?"

in my case that comes down to a simple hell no.

you could make a case that monitoring increases security, but my argument would be that as long as anyone who has access to your systems can lay their hands on the information [and remember, it's not like edward snowden hacked into a mainframe from a remote location- he just downloaded files, like we all do at work and at home], you're actually decreasing security in another very serious way. because all of the information collected [and we will probably never know how long it's held for] can be captured and given to anybody. how secure do you feel now?

so no, the specifics of who edward snowden is- his beliefs, his motivations, his goals- aren't particularly important. but his role as an employee and his access to all of our private communications absolutely is. because we don't know how many other edward snowdens there are, downloading that data and sharing it with their friends, their political allies, people offering them money or people threatening them. we don't have a way of finding out who all the other edwards are and we don't know who's on their team.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …