Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian

sage: It seems that people have been speaking out against the mainstream media and their questionable reporting methods in various ways lately.

Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian went head-to-head with Reuters over an article that “widely distorted” his interview with Edward Snowden in order “to attract attention away from the revelations themselves.” (Story 1). In London, singer Amanda Palmer blasted The Daily Mail for an article that “reported nothing else about her performance, but made sure to include a high-resolution image…” and included a punny, but not funny, headline (Story 2). And, in Story 3, a television station covering the Asiana Airlines crash at San Francisco airport proved just how much they rely on teleprompters and not actual fact-finding journalism, blaming their own ineptness on the National Transportation Safety Board for releasing false information.

Story 1 – About The Reuters Article

By Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian – July 13, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/p6ud43v

The latest effort to distract attention from the NSA revelations is more absurd than most.

When you give many interviews in different countries and say essentially the same thing over and over, as I do, media outlets often attempt to re-package what you’ve said to make their interview seem new and newsworthy, even when it isn’t.

Such is the case with this Reuters article today, that purports to summarize an interview I gave to the daily newspaper La Nacion of Argentina.

Like everything in the matter of these NSA leaks, this interview is being wildly distorted to attract attention away from the revelations themselves.

It’s particularly being seized on to attack Edward Snowden and, secondarily, me, for supposedly “blackmailing” and “threatening” the US government. That is just absurd.

That Snowden has created some sort of “dead man’s switch” – whereby documents get released in the event that he is killed by the US government – was previously reported weeks ago, and Snowden himself has strongly implied much the same thing.

That doesn’t mean he thinks the US government is attempting to kill him – he doesn’t – just that he’s taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint).

I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats:

1) The oft-repeated claim that Snowden’s intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those.

When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value.

If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that.

He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time.

The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance.

My point in this interview was clear, one I’ve repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn’t, as evidenced by the fact that – as I said – he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government’s programs.

That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated.

That’s why none of the disclosures we’ve published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they’ve harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them.

2) The US government has acted with wild irrationality. The current criticism of Snowden is that he’s in Russia. But the reason he’s in Russia isn’t that he chose to be there.

It’s because the US blocked him from leaving: first by revoking his passport (with no due process or trial), then by pressuring its allies to deny airspace rights to any plane they thought might be carrying him to asylum (even one carrying the democratically elected president of a sovereign state), then by bullying small countries out of letting him land for re-fueling.

Given the extraordinary amount of documents he has and their sensitivity, I pointed out in the interview that it is incredibly foolish for the US government to force him to remain in Russia.

From the perspective of the US government and the purported concerns about him being in Russia, that makes zero sense given the documents he has.

3) I was asked whether I thought the US government would take physical action against him if he tried to go to Latin America or even force his plane down.

That’s when I said that doing so would be completely counter-productive given that – as has been reported before – such an attack could easily result in far more disclosures than allowing us as journalists to vet and responsibly report them, as we’ve doing.

As a result of the documents he has, I said in the interview, the US government should be praying for his safety, not threatening or harming it.

That has nothing to do with me: I don’t have access to those “insurance” documents and have no role in whatever dead man switch he’s arranged.

I’m reporting what documents he says he has and what precautions he says he has taken to protect himself from what he perceives to be the threat to his well-being.

That’s not a threat. Those are facts. I’m sorry if some people find them to be unpleasant. But they’re still facts.

Before Snowden’s identity was revealed as the whistleblower here, I wrote:

“Ever since the Nixon administration broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst’s office, the tactic of the US government has been to attack and demonize whistleblowers as a means of distracting attention from their own exposed wrongdoing and destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message. That attempt will undoubtedly be made here.”

That’s what all of this is. And it’s all it is: an ongoing effort to distract attention away from the substance of the revelations.

(This morning, MSNBC show host Melissa Harris-Parry blamed Snowden for the fact that there is so much media attention on him and so little on the NSA revelations: as though she doesn’t have a twice-weekly TV show where she’s free to focus as much as she wants on the NSA revelations she claims to find so important).

Compare the attention paid to Snowden’s asylum drama and alleged personality traits to the attention paid to the disclosures about mass, indiscriminate NSA spying.

Or compare the media calls that Snowden (and others who worked to expose mass NSA surveillance) be treated like a criminal to the virtually non-existent calls that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper be treated like a criminal for lying to Congress.

This “threat” fiction is just today’s concoction to focus on anything but the revelations about US government lying to Congress and constitutionally and legally dubious NSA spying. Yesterday, it was something else, and tomorrow it will be something else again.

As I said in an interview with Falguni Sheth published today by Salon, this only happens in the US: everywhere else, the media attention and political focus is on NSA surveillance, while US media figures are singularly obsessed with focusing on everything but that.

There are all sorts of ways that Snowden could have chosen to make these documents be public. He chose the most responsible way possible: coming to media outlets and journalists he trusted and asking that they be reported on responsibly.

The effort to depict him as some sort of malicious traitor is completely negated by the facts. That was the point of the interview. If you’re looking for people who have actually harmed the US with criminal behavior, look here and here and here – not to those who took risks to blow the whistle on all of that.

As always, none of this will detain us even for a moment in continuing to report on the many NSA stories that remain.

UPDATE

The original La Nacion interview which Reuters claimed to summarize is now online; the rough English translation is here. Here’s the context for my quote about what documents he possesses:

“Q: Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

“A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States.

But that’s not his goal. [His] objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy.

[He] has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public.”

And exactly as I said, the answer about the dead man’s switch came in response to my being asked: “Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?”

That’s when I explained that I thought it was so unlikely because his claimed dead man’s switch meant that it would produce more harm than good from the perspective of the US government.

The only people who would claim any of this was a “threat” or “blackmail” are people with serious problems of reading comprehension or honesty, or both.

Read more

We’re approaching a time when many things will be happening that will test to the maximum our ability to believe and accept. I tell myself it may be useful to discuss my own way of proceeding with the novel and strange.

You’ll have your own way as well but perhaps we can compare notes (and I’ll leave comments open for you to contribute your own ways). We may need every tool in our toolboxes soon.

Phenomenology vs. Empirical Materialism

It’s very useful to have a common language so let me introduce some distinctions. I apologize for the Latinate diction, but a few basic terms may assist us.

First of all, I am by nature what’s called a phenomenologist rather than an empirical materialist. It’s been a long time since I sat in a philosophy class so, if I say what that means, I’m saying what it means for me only.

To say “I’m a phenomenologist” for me means that I study and accept the subjective (as well as the objective) where empirical materialists might rather restrict themselves to studying and accepting only the objective. If I were only to accept what can be objectively touched and seen and felt, then I probably would not study or accept the existence of the soul, God, faith, or love.

I certainly would not accept the existence of unseen beings in higher dimensions or their equally-invisible spaceships. And how could I explain Ascension or even enlightenment? Where would a discontinuity find a place in my research? No, empirical materialism confines me to too small a world, I’m afraid.

Experientialism

I could as easily say I’m an experientialist rather than an empiricist, or a subjectivist instead of an objectivist, in the sense that I look for proof of something in my own subjective experience of it. That leaves me in a position where a lot that I study is only “verifiable by me.” I’m not as attracted to empirical studies like astrophysics as I am to experiential fields like the growth movement or mysticism.

The central assignment in life is to know who we are. But the study of that and the knowing of that leaves empirical studies far behind. On my path of self-awareness, there are few empirical devices or tools that can help as much as experiential tools.

Heuristic Value: What’s Useful?

The heuristic point of view encourages us to take a new point of view based on the usefulness it promises. Heuristics refers to the process of discovery in which we use whatever is helpful to further our process. Something has heuristic value if it proves useful in a process. And it has heuristic value because we say so.

That doesn’t mean I allow the ends to justify the means. It doesn’t mean I would somehow torture someone to get the truth because it’s useful. Dharma and the divine qualities trump heuristics. But it does mean that I release myself from confining rigidities of disciplinary conventions and boundaries.

When I was a doctoral student in Sociology, I spent days in the library wandering through folkloristics, proxemics, semiotics and every other neighboring discipline. I could not keep myself within paradigmatic boundaries for the life of me. Finally I had to leave the university for so many reasons – empirical materialism was too small, disciplinary boundaries were too confining. (I think we call me an “Indigo,” do we not?)

For me, the master of the heuristic was Edward de Bono, the inventor of lateral thinking. He would do things like open a dictionary, look at a word and then ask what that word had to tell him about the solution of a problem.

To solve a teacher shortage in Nigeria (I think it was), he found the word “crocodile.” What did a crocodile have to tell him about solving a teacher shortage in a developing country? The crocodile’s tail follows the animal around. So de Bono designed a system in which the teacher-in-training followed the teacher around and after so many years was certified as a teacher.

He was a Houdini at escaping any confining box, context or paradigm. And skills like those are what we’re going to need.

Suspension of Disbelief

Another useful tool in my toolbox is the suggestion made to readers or viewers of science-fiction to “suspend disbelief.” That was a pre-requisite for getting into a good Isaac Asimov novel or an Arthur C. Clark film. One has to be willing to enter the scene on the writer’s or film maker’s terms at least for the period of the experience if one wanted to derive the benefit from or be inspired by it.

Another cut at this I call acting “as if.” Adopting this point of view is similar to suspending disbelief. For the purposes of what’s produced, we act “as if” something were true. That too allows an avenue to discovery by opening me up to new ways of seeing.

Try It On/Test It Out

The growth movement is dedicated to helping us to emerge from the illusions and delusions that we create for ourselves in the course of our lives. It’s useful to listen to what another is saying who is “calling us” on “our stuff” or, even better, to call ourselves.

To do that we have to “try on” the perspective of another – in this case, the one who may be calling us. We try it on and test it out and, if it fits with our experience, then we adopt it. Without trying it on and testing it out, we may never accept a new or different viewpoint on any one question.

Accept Provisionally First and Watch for Contrary Evidence

In law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. As a human-rights decision-maker, I and my colleagues went further. People fleeing torture or imprisonment often were not able to bring documents with them to support or prove their case. So we were encouraged to accept everyone’s credibility until evidence was produced to the contrary.

The most obvious source of evidence was their own speaking. If they said things that were inconsistent, contradictory, improbable, implausible, etc., or proven mistaken by the country documents, and could give no reasonable explanation, that might be grounds for rejecting their account as not credible. (Little did we suspect that the country documents could be contrived in a post-9/11 world.)

Successive Approximations

An effective remedy to the need to have all our ducks in a row before we act, to do things perfectly, etc., is to use and accept successive approximations. Vilfredo Pareto used this in the development of new disciplines and B.F. Skinner used it in the the development of new lines of trained behavior.

I in fact use it in my writing. With each pass at the subject of vasanas, I made an entirely new statement, gradually honing or polishing the concept more on each occasion.

Allowing myself to approach a subject through successive approximations relieves stress and prevents me from thinking of any one statement as a finished product. It builds in change, flexibility, adaptability, and growth in our efforts at meeting and understanding a subject.

Paradigmatic Breakthrough

Thomas Kuhn looked at the subject of paradigm change and saw that the willingness to “be with” paradox, confusion and distress allowed for there to be a moment of realization in which all things rearranged themselves. Often it consisted in “putting one’s arms around” an entire subject. It could mean dividing a subject between two seemingly conflicting matters (Durkheim’s distinction between “value” and “fact” is an example).

It could bring forth a view of a relationship that was not apparent before, as Benjamin Lee Whorf was so adept at doing. Whorf discovered that the way we described things determined how they showed up for us: describing something as an “empty drum” might hide the fact that flammable vapors existed in it, leading to a fire when a match was thrown into the drum; describing a switch as a “light switch” when it operated a cone heater might lead to a fire if a coat was thrown over the heater; etc.

Metaphors We Live By

Examining the impact on us and our beliefs of the metaphors we use to understand and experience our world can release us from points of view that no longer serve us. This is very close to Whorf’s work, in that we look at the linguistic symbols that define our world and our response to it to free us from constraints we had not realized even existed before.

Oh my, we could go on and on, looking at the constraints of our conceptual boxes, but I think you get my drift.

When we’re about to meet beings from other planets, other dimensions, and maybe even other universes, when we’re about to see our own cherished and treasured views largely overturned and quickly so, these are the conceptual devices I’ll be turning to to remain open, available and sane.

They describe philosophically or operationally a path that’s useful to open to. They help us to try out things we may be shown in the times ahead that are novel or strange. They help us move from rigidity to suppleness, conventionality to flexibility.

George Zimmerman (R), with his attorneys, Mark O’Mara (L), and Don West (C), stands to be identified. Photo: EPA

Stephen: I doubt this will be the last trial for this polarising case.

By Peter Foster, US Editor, The Telegraph, UK – July 14, 2013

http://tinyurl.com/o3ltjtj

George Zimmerman, the Florida neighbourhood watch captain who shot and killed 17-year African American high school student Trayvon Martin in a killing that raised major questions about race and gun control in America, was last night found not guilty of his murder.

Trayvon Martin

After a dramatic three-week trial and more than 16 hours of deliberation, an all-woman jury in Sanford, Florida reached a not guilty verdict after accepting that the 29-year-old had acted in self-defence when he shot and killed Martin.

Mr Zimmerman remained expressionless as the verdict was read out with his family members smiling broadly. The Martin family, who had pushed so publicly for an investigation into their son’s death, were not in the court as the verdict was read out.

The judge told Mr Zimmerman he was free to go, telling him that the GPS beacon that had been tracking him while on bail would be switched off as he left the court.

“We’re ecstatic with the results,” defence attorney Mark O’Mara after the verdict. “George Zimmerman was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense.”

Another member of his defense team, Don West, said he was pleased the jury “kept this tragedy from becoming a travesty.”

The shooting in a gated community in a town of 50,000 people 30 miles north of Orlando, caused a national public outcry last year after the Martin family and civil rights leaders alleged police had failed to properly investigate Mr Zimmerman, who was not arrested until 44 days after the shooting.

The black teenager had been walking to his father’s house after buying some sweets at the local shop when he was seen by Mr Zimmerman who called the police, but ignored the orders of police dispatchers not to confront the boy. A fight then ensured during which Mr Zimmerman shot Martin dead.

News of the shooting caused a furore which led to the sacking of Sanford’s white police chief, even drawing in Barack Obama who said that if he had a son “he’d look like Trayvon”, sparking a national debate over race relations in America more than 20 years after infamous beating of Rodney King.

However, as time passed and more details emerged about Mr Zimmerman, whose mother is Hispanic, the racial tensions surrounding the case eased.

The family’s demands for a full investigation and trial were met and a new, black police chief, Cecil Smith, was installed in Sanford with a mission to promote even-handed policing.

Last night supporters of Trayvon Martin’s family gathered outside the court to await the verdict expressed anger and disappointment at the outcome.

Martin’s father Tracy tweeted: “God blessed Me & Sybrina with Tray and even in his death I know my baby proud of the FIGHT we along with all of you put up for him GOD BLESS.

“Even though I am broken hearted my faith is unshattered I WILL ALWAYS LOVE MY BABY TRAY.”

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, also said on Twitter that she appreciated the prayers from supporters.

“Lord during my darkest hour I lean on you. You are all that I have,” she wrote.

Bernie de la Rionda, the assistant state attorney who was the chief prosecutor in the case againstMr Zimmerman, said he and his two fellow prosecutors were unhappy about the outcome of the trial.

“I am disappointed, as we are, with the verdict. But we accept it. We live in a great country that has a great criminal justice system. It’s not perfect, but it is the best in the world and we respect the jury’s verdict,” he said.

Prior to the verdict both families, civil rights leaders including Jesse Jackson and local police had all called for a calm response to a case that has riveted America over the last three weeks.

The trial turned on several key defence witnesses who appeared to support Mr Zimmerman’s claims that he had acted in self-defence and shot Martin as an act of last resort after the teenager banged his head repeatedly into the concrete pavement, a claim consistent with his head injuries.

In one of the most telling testimonies, Vincent DiMaio, a forensic pathologist who has testified in several high-profile cases, said that examination of the bullet wound had supported Mr Zimmerman’s contention that Martin was on top, straddling him during the fight.

“The wound itself, by the gap and the powder tattooing … indicates that this is consistent with Mr Zimmerman’s account that Mr Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot,” Mr DiMaio testified, adding that it was “not exactly a complicated case forensically”.

Another key witness, Jonathan Good, who was a resident at the gated community and observed the fight from his house, also supported Mr Zimmerman’s contention that he was underneath in the scuffle.

“The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?” asked defence attorney Mark O’Mara, “He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?” “That’s what it looked like,” Mr Good answered.

Also central to the trial was the question of whether it was Mr Zimmerman or Martin that was heard screaming for help on a 911 call moments before the fatal shot was fired.

Experts from the FBI ruled that with Trayvon Martin dead, it was impossible to prove who was screaming scientifically – using voice analysis or other techniques which ultimately left the matter inconclusive.

The defence called a succession of character witnesses who swore that the voice on the tape belonged to Mr Zimmerman while the prosecution relied on testimony from both of Trayvon Martin’s father, Tracy and, mother Sybrina Fulton who said that it was “absolutely” her son’s voice.

With Mr Martin dead and no other witnesses to prove the precisely what happened on the night of February 26 impossible beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution case turned on convincing the jury that Mr Zimmerman had maliciously “profiled” the black teenager and made racist assumptions.

The prosecution zeroed-in on Mr Zimmerman’s words to a police dispatcher on the night of shooting when had said, “F***ing punks. Those assholes, they always get away,’” – words that were quoted at the opening of the trial.

“Those were the words in that grown man’s mouth as he followed in the dark a 17-year-old boy who he didn’t know,” John Guy, for the prosecution averred to the jury. “Those were the words in that defendant’s head moments before he pressed that pistol into Trayvon Martin’s chest and pulled that trigger.” However, the defence vigorously contested that characterisation of Mr Zimmerman, who is of Hispanic ethnic origin and who, they contended, had been a pillar of support in a community that had been plagued by recent burglaries and break-ins.

To support their case they called Olivia Bertalan, a neighbour of Mr Zimmerman, who described how she had been the victim of a home invasion. She testified that Mr Zimmerman gave her a dog to comfort her after the crime. The defence also contested accusation that Mr Zimmerman was a racist, citing his work as a mentor to black children and his taking a black girl to his prom as clear evidence of his non-racist beliefs.

In the end the jury were persuaded that the prosecution had failed to disprove beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr Zimmerman had acted either maliciously or illegally when he shot Mr Martin.

“Fundamentally the problem was that the prosecution didn’t have a witness, they didn’t have someone who could describe who took the first swing, who was the aggressor,” said Jeffrey Toobin, the senior legal analyst for CNN.

“But it is a sombre reflection on this country and our criminal justice system that Trayvon Martin went out there and bought an ice tea and a bag of Skittles and is dead. I’m not saying the verdict is wrong, but that is a very troubling thing.”

Among some black residents of Sandford, there was anger and sadness at the verdict.

Rosie Barron, 50, and Andrew Perkins, 55, stood in the parking lot of the courthouse and wept.

“I at least thought he was going to get something, something,” Ms Barron said.

Mr Perkins, so upset he was shaking, asked: “How the hell did they find him not guilty?”

“He killed somebody and got away with murder. He ain’t getting no probation or nothing.”

Demonstrations against the verdict were being held in San Francisco, Chicago and Washington DC, but community leaders have called for calm.

“Avoid violence, it will lead to more tragedies. Find a way for self construction not deconstruction in this time of despair,” wrote rights leader Jesse Jackson in a Twitter message.

Another rights activist, Al Sharpton, issued a statement posted on his Facebook account describing Mr Zimmerman’s acquittal as “a slap in the face to the American people but it is only the first round in the pursuit of justice.”

“We intend to ask the Department of Justice to move forward as they did in the Rodney King case and we will closely monitor the civil case against Mr. Zimmerman,” said Mr Sharpton, adding that he was convening “an emergency call with preachers” to “discuss next steps.”

Stephen: Yes, we’ve run a lot on 29-year-old Edward Snowden and the NSA/PRISM revelations lately. This compilation article by Jay Rosen of PressThink goes a good way to explaining why this story is so important and how these revelations are setting in motion a chain of reactions and events in various areas that will continue to bring truth to the surface for all to see. In Australia, we call it ‘the knock-on effect’ and this one is huge. Thanks to Christie.

The Snowden Effect: Definition and Examples

By Jay Rosen, Pres Think – July 2013

http://pressthink.org/2013/07/the-snowden-effect-definition-and-examples/

It’s about what he set in motion by taking the action he did.

The Snowden effect, a definition:

Direct and indirect gains in public knowledge from the cascade of events and further reporting that followed Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified information about the surveillance state in the U.S.

Meaning: there’s what Snowden himself revealed by releasing secrets and talking to the press. But beyond this, there is what he set in motion by taking that action. Congress and other governments begin talking in public about things they had previously kept hidden. Companies have to explain some of their dealings with the state. Journalists who were not a party to the transaction with Snowden start digging and adding background. Debates spring to life that had been necessary but missing before the leaks. The result is that we know much more about the surveillance state than we did before. Some of the opacity around it lifts. This is the Snowden effect.

It is good for public knowledge. And public knowledge is supposed to be what a free press and open debate are all about.

Notes, links and examples: (updated several times after July 5)

1. As reported on July 4:

Days after President François Hollande sternly told the United States to stop spying on its allies, the newspaper Le Monde disclosed on Thursday that France has its own large program of data collection, which sweeps up nearly all the data transmissions, including telephone calls, e-mails and social media activity, that come in and out of France. (Le Monde.)

So the Snowden effect is international. Canada, for example. Or Brazil.

2. On July 3, Reuters reported on the “long history of close cooperation between technology companies and the intelligence community.”

Former U.S. officials and intelligence sources say the collaboration between the tech industry and spy agencies is both broader and deeper than most people realize, dating back to the formative years of Silicon Valley itself.

A similar story ran in the New York Times on June 19. It told of “the increasingly deep connections between Silicon Valley and the [NSA] and the degree to which they are now in the same business.”

3. In a superb story by four reporters on June 15, the Associated Press expanded the frame:

The revelation of Prism this month by the Washington Post and Guardian newspapers has touched off the latest round in a decade-long debate over what limits to impose on government eavesdropping, which the Obama administration says is essential to keep the nation safe.

But interviews with more than a dozen current and former government and technology officials and outside experts show that, while Prism has attracted the recent attention, the program actually is a relatively small part of a much more expansive and intrusive eavesdropping effort.

4. Expanding the frame in a different way, the McClatchy Washington bureau reported on the Obama Administration’s extremely aggressive crackdown on leaks: (June 20)

President Barack Obama’s unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments and agencies nationwide.

“This has gotten scant public attention; let’s remedy that.” So goes the Snowden effect.

5. On June 15 Bloomberg reported that “thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence.”

These programs, whose participants are known as trusted partners, extend far beyond what was revealed by Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the National Security Agency.

6. Two days ago, a report in the New York Times explained how Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall are “trying to force intelligence officials to provide answers for the public record” about matters already familiar to them from secret briefings given to Congress. The key phrase is “answers for the public record.” That is the core of the Snowden effect. (Moreon this.)

7. On June 25, the National Security Agency had to take down two fact sheets it had posted online after Wyden and Udall complained that they contained misinformation. The documents were themselves an example of the Snowden effect, as Politico reported:

The documents, still available here, were published in the wake of revelations about the extent of the NSA’s surveillance programs. They sought to highlight the safeguards the NSA uses to make sure American communications aren’t caught up in its surveillance — or if they are, what the NSA does to remove identifying information about U.S. citizens.

In other words, the NSA – often called the most secretive agency in the government – felt it had to explain itself. This is good for public knowledge. Two U.S. Senators then fact checked the NSA, which is even better.

8. Jack Shafer of Reuters predicted the Snowden effect in his June 8 column. “This will now fuel new cycles of reporting, leaks and scoops — and another, and another — as new sources are cultivated and reportorial scraps gathering mold in journalists’ notebooks gain new relevance and help break stories.” He was right.

9. Did you know that the United States Postal Service “computers photograph the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces last year?” I did not. The New York Times reported on it July 3rd. As Ethan Zuckerman notes, the Smoking Gun website had the story on June 7 but few saw it. The Snowden effect works like that. It widens the circle of people who know, even if the knowledge had been available before.

10. On the front page of the New York Times, Scott Shane reported on a kind a “parallel Supreme Court,” FISA, making new and consequential law in secret. This brought a discussion that had taken place on legal blogs to a much wider public. The Wall Street Journal followed up the next day with more details.

A final note: The Snowden effect is far more important than the Snowdon saga, meaning: the story of what happens to him as the United States pursues his capture and arrest, plus what comes out about his background and motivations. But I would not call his personal story a “distraction” from the real story. That’s not right. Who he is, what kind of access he had, why he did what he did, and even the arguments about whether he’s a disloyal creep or a profile in courage are inescapably part of the larger story and the public debate it has triggered. (Read Matt Cooper of National Journal on this issue.) You can’t wish for more public attention to the surveillance state and then scoff at one of the means by which people come to the larger story, which is his story. But I repeat what I said: the Snowden effect is ultimately more important than the Snowdon saga.

fter Matter: Notes, Reactions & Links #

On June 17, President Obama said he wanted a “national conversation” on the NSA’s collection of data. Slowly, haltingly, and with great difficulty he is getting it– because of the Snowden effect.

First use of the term “Snowden effect” that I can find is by Esquire’s Charles Pierce here. Also see his follow-up.

Whether he likes it or not, this is the ‘national conversation’ that the president said he wanted. Edward Snowden, world traveler, international man of luggage, made it impossible to avoid.

The Snowden effect is well captured in the public hearings before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The hearings are one of Obama’s responses to the sense of public alarm created by Snowden’s original revelations. They are starting to produce:

A former federal judge who granted government surveillance requests has broken ranks to criticise the system of secret courts as unfit for purpose in the wake of recent revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

July 10: Scott Shane of the New York Times reports on the Snowden effect:

It is still unclear whether Mr. Snowden, the 30-year-old former N.S.A. contractor now holed up at a Moscow airport, will escape punishment. But he has succeeded in opening the government spying’s trade-offs between civil liberties and security to the broadest and best-informed public debate in many years, even as intelligence officials are horrified at the exposure of their methods and targets.

Underneath all this is a troubling question: can there even be an informed public and thus “consent of the governed” for the national security state? Or have we in effect done away with those concepts? This essay by Will Wilkinson in the Economist is the best thing I have read on that subject:

You see, democracy here at home must be balanced against the requirements of security, and it is simply too dangerous to leave the question of this balance to the democratic public. Open deliberation over the appropriate balance would require saying something concrete about threats to public safety, and also about the means by which those threats might be checked. But revealing such information would only empower America’s enemies and endanger American lives. Therefore, this is a discussion Americans can’t afford to have.

This post was chewed over by a panel of observers on MSNBC: Debating the Snowden Effect.

Reuters: Latin American nations fuming over NSA spying allegations.

Yahoo is fighting for the right to reveal its struggle with the NSA over demands that the company said it resisted. The court documents are currently secret.

In a rare legal move, Yahoo is asking a secretive U.S. surveillance court to let the public see its arguments in a 2008 case that played an important role in persuading tech companies to cooperate with a controversial government data-gathering effort.

“Let the public see its arguments.” That’s the Snowden effect.

Two related PressThink posts on the NSA story:

* Politics: some / Politics: none. Two ways to excel in political journalism. Neither dominates. (June 13)

* David Gregory tries to read Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian out of the journalism club (June 24.)

Montague Keen, July 13, 2013

My dear Veronica, you have had to cope with so much since we last wrote. It was both enlightening and reassuring for you. I warned that the Cabal would lash out at everyone, clutching every straw to try to hold on to power. At times, it may look as if they have succeeded, but they will not. What you experienced last Sunday evening is proof that they can be prevented from carrying out their dastardly plans.

Sunday 7 July at about 9pm

I was talking with T, A and S in Ireland using Skype. It was just general conversation. Suddenly a voice came through over the conversation. It clearly stated that D was under attack. I was also under attack. A and S were told to go to a certain place to counter the attack. They did so immediately. They had the most amazing experience. The Tuatha de Danann and the Ancient Goddesses of Ireland were there to greet them. A was told to concentrate on me. S was told to concentrate on D. The attack was intended to immobilise D and to wipe me out completely. T continued to talk with me. I was having chest pain etc, and I was so concerned for D, as I could not contact him. It was a very disturbing time for all of us. The warning voice is on tape. S pressed the Record button on the device when this voice suddenly broke through our conversation. I have a tape of their experiences with the Ancients of Ireland as they returned home. The good energy that was released was almost overwhelming for the girls. This is but one example of the Light preventing the Dark from destroying its plans.

___________________________________________________

We also experienced, this week, how sending love can remove the hold which the Dark had placed on someone we care about. Love does work when two or more of you come together to do it. The results are both visible and powerful. Monty asked me to share this with you, so that you know how powerful we are, and what we can achieve when we come together with love and light. Last evening, I asked A to tune in on her radio receiver. A, S and I, asked Monty to speak to us through it. He did so. He had good news for us. D is waking up. He will be okay. We all needed to hear that.

Monty: You will never doubt the power of love again. This demonstration of its power should encourage everyone to remove all anger and fear, and live in love. The Dark do not know love. They cannot cope with it: they fear it. The changes that you can bring about, not just in your own lives, but in your world, will amaze and delight you. Once you understand this concept, nothing can stop you. The light is spreading, as people awaken and realise their own innate power. Some have been so downtrodden that it is difficult for them to accept that they, too, are beings of light and love. Remember: what you put out, you get back. When you expect the worst, that is exactly what you draw towards you. You control your own destiny.

Your governments are trying to exert more and more control because they fear you: the awakened you. The evil that seems to be in control is losing its grip on humanity. They know that they cannot succeed, yet they still try to hang on. You do not need guns or violence of any sort. You do not even need to raise your voice. You, the 99%, now know how to go forward and create a world where peace, justice and love, rule the day. Visualise this and you will make it happen. Support those, who, through the power of love, come together to share knowledge and experiences. The future is in your hands. We walk with you every step of the way. We are but a thought away. It is time for all of you to step into your power. Remove the FEAR which religions have used to control your lives. They have replaced love with fear. This is how they have kept you under control for all this time. Remove the shackles and experience life as it should be lived, in love and light.

Everything will be in place for the New Age to begin. Free energy for all, and information on producing food that will sustain you, rather than the modified versions, designed to cause illness and dull your minds. There are good people all over the world who will share their expertise. Everything is ready to be put in place. You will never have to live like this again, where the few control the many. The energy of Planet Earth will be restored, every country will benefit, and every being will be valued and respected. This is what you are working towards. We need every one of you on board.

You are spirit having an experience on Earth. Your body is but your overcoat and you will discard it and move on, for life goes on forever. Many of us have returned many times to prove this fact. When we show ourselves in full manifestation to all, then the doubters will come to understand that it is the truth. Life goes on, it is just not life as you know it.

Do not fill your minds with mindless rubbish, for it is designed to keep you in darkness. Laughter produces wonderful energy that will enhance your lives. It releases stress and it is good for the soul. Try not to weep for those who pass to spirit, for they are the lucky ones who have been released from the trials and tribulations of life on Earth. Instead, make contact with them. They watch over you and they try to guide you, as you walk your path in life. You need never be alone as spirit is all around you. What you miss is the smile, the love, and the warm embrace, but you can still connect with these in your minds. You will learn to wake up to the full power of your minds. You use only 10% of it, for the Dark Side has blocked off the remainder. But it is returning to its full potential. One day, you will look back and wonder how you ever managed to survive this dark period. You will not just survive it, you will replace it. You will cut all the tentacles of the Dark and they will become powerless in the Light. Pity them, as they face exposure and defeat. Do not lower yourselves to their level. Show no anger or revenge, as you are above that. Anger and revenge only harm the individual who shows them. They destroy your soul. This would mean that the Dark had triumphed over you. So do not play their game, for this is exactly what they want you to do. It would bring you down to their level.

You have everything to live for. Those of you with particular missions need to step up to the mark and prepare for action. The right people will be in the right place at the right time. I promise you that, my dear. Just allow us to put everything in place. When all of you come together as one, and want the same thing, you cannot fail. The power of intention is indeed powerful. So what are you waiting for ? You are all invited to be active, and to play your part in removing the Dark and restoring the Light.

Veronica, my dearest one, know that you have friends around you in life and in the afterlife. Friendly planets also want you to succeed, and you will ! Those you need around you, will be there for you. We are preparing them, but it cannot be rushed. The obstacles that caused so much worry, disruption and major confusion, are no longer in place. He will learn who he can trust and who he must withdraw from. It was a difficult path. Always be there for him, for he has suffered much at the hands of the Dark.

All will be well. Your team, on both sides of life, is ready and willing to move forward in love and light.

Forever, your adoring, Monty.