General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets
This past January, Laura Poitras received a curious e-mail from an anonymous stranger requesting her public encryption key. For almost two years, Poitras had been working on a documentary about surveillance, and she occasionally received queries from strangers. She replied to this one and sent her public key allowing him or her to send an encrypted e-mail that only Poitras could open, with her private key but she didnt think much would come of it.
The stranger responded with instructions for creating an even more secure system to protect their exchanges. Promising sensitive information, the stranger told Poitras to select long pass phrases that could withstand a brute-force attack by networked computers. Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second, the stranger wrote.
Before long, Poitras received an encrypted message that outlined a number of secret surveillance programs run by the government. She had heard of one of them but not the others. After describing each program, the stranger wrote some version of the phrase, This I can prove.
Seconds after she decrypted and read the e-mail, Poitras disconnected from the Internet and removed the message from her computer. I thought, O.K., if this is true, my life just changed, she told me last month. It was staggering, what he claimed to know and be able to provide. I just knew that I had to change everything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
This is a great read. There are some interesting nuggets throughout, such as, Greenwald and Poitras possessing thousands of documents from Snowden that they are working through. It goes into what their motives are and how they work.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)You might want to skip past the descriptions of the dogs and the monkeys and what's in Greenwald's refrigerator.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Gotta make choices: drama or retirement planning
I read a third of it, btw. How much did you read?
Uh, don't ask
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)written about that.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)And some people don't seem to grasp that this truly is no longer is the Land of the Free, why the major media is now afraid to independently report the facts on the ground about US military operations, and why a few brave people are blowing the whistle.
This is what happened to Poitras after she made a critical movie about the effects of the occupation of Iraq in which, in one scene, she captured footage from the rooftop of an Iraqi friend's apartment of a US attack on a nearby mosque in Baghdad in which one US soldier was killed. For no other reason than she happened to be there, and shot the scene without prior permission from her military minders, she was accused of aiding the enemy by some in the US Army:
(Note also the reference to the "400 point scale" that the government uses to profile those Americans who are considered security threats, no doubt developed with the aid of the NSA's profiling and surveillance systems, and the Kafkaeque way the Feds detain and search persons at the constitutional no-man's land that is the US border)
In June 2006, her tickets on domestic flights were marked SSSS Secondary Security Screening Selection which means the bearer faces extra scrutiny beyond the usual measures. She was detained for the first time at Newark International Airport before boarding a flight to Israel, where she was showing her film. On her return flight, she was held for two hours before being allowed to re-enter the country. The next month, she traveled to Bosnia to show the film at a festival there. When she flew out of Sarajevo and landed in Vienna, she was paged on the airport loudspeaker and told to go to a security desk; from there she was led to a van and driven to another part of the airport, then taken into a room where luggage was examined.
They took my bags and checked them, Poitras said. They asked me what I was doing, and I said I was showing a movie in Sarajevo about the Iraq war. And then I sort of befriended the security guy. I asked what was going on. He said: Youre flagged. You have a threat score that is off the Richter scale. You are at 400 out of 400. I said, Is this a scoring system that works throughout all of Europe, or is this an American scoring system? He said. No, this is your government that has this and has told us to stop you.
After 9/11, the U.S. government began compiling a terrorist watch list that was at one point estimated to contain nearly a million names. There are at least two subsidiary lists that relate to air travel. The no-fly list contains the names of tens of thousands of people who are not allowed to fly into or out of the country. The selectee list, which is larger than the no-fly list, subjects people to extra airport inspections and questioning. These lists have been criticized by civil rights groups for being too broad and arbitrary and for violating the rights of Americans who are on them.
In Vienna, Poitras was eventually cleared to board her connecting flight to New York, but when she landed at J.F.K., she was met at the gate by two armed law-enforcement agents and taken to a room for questioning. It is a routine that has happened so many times since then on more than 40 occasions that she has lost precise count. Initially, she said, the authorities were interested in the paper she carried, copying her receipts and, once, her notebook. After she stopped carrying her notes, they focused on her electronics instead, telling her that if she didnt answer their questions, they would confiscate her gear and get their answers that way. On one occasion, Poitras says, they did seize her computers and cellphones and kept them for weeks. She was also told that her refusal to answer questions was itself a suspicious act. Because the interrogations took place at international boarding crossings, where the government contends that ordinary constitutional rights do not apply, she was not permitted to have a lawyer present.
dkf
(37,305 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and do something about it, will we ever know what is real and what is illusion in this society ever again?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)hueymahl
(2,496 posts)Makes me ashamed to be an American. Strike that, makes me ashamed of what we have become.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Very clear and useful treatment of a complicated subject.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Snowden did not get the job at Booz until April. This story further confirms that the spying was completely premeditated and assisted.
dkf
(37,305 posts)In a Democracy we wouldn't need leaks.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Greenwald, and now Poitras, have admitted to setting up their link to Snowden in January.
Snowden got the job in April.
It's was a conspiracy to leak state secrets. Plain and simple.
Why ignore it?
You can agree with the action, but you cannot deny it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 04:49 PM - Edit history (1)
but clearly Poitras and Greenwald did not know his work history or who he was or where he was getting his info or when he got it. Neither Poitras or Greenwald were active agents in any of Snowden's actions until they received the documents.
So no, there was no conspiracy. It was a source leaking secrets to journalists.
Why characterize it any other way? And why haven't you called for the arrest of Bart Gellman?
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)When Snowden is brought in, Greenwald will follow.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)He co-wrote the 2nd NSA story with Poitras.
hueymahl
(2,496 posts)Or you are a dirtbag troll. Either way, you need to get it fixed.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The treatment of Laura Poitras demonstrates what this government has really become.
Journalism itself is now considered the enemy.
This is the behavior of a growing totalitarian state, not the United States of America.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)nt
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Thank you Morningfog!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)Thanks for posting. Parts of it read like something out of a spy novel.
It was also reassuring to know how technically sophisticated Snowden and Poitras are. They understand this stuff-- they're not just wandering around in the dark here.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The United States of America.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Again, every American needs to read what is being done to journalism in this country.
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)Its like Kafka. Nobody ever tells you what the accusation is.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...time to throw Peter Maass under the bus:
Peter Maass is an investigative reporter working on a book about surveillance and privacy.
He's cashing in! The bastard!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for some curious reason.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Greenwald calls her "the Kaiser Soze of the NSA leaks story". Very recommended.
I'm also wondering if Peter Maas is related to the Peter Maas who wrote Serpico. From what I can see in his bio, apparently not, but that's an interesting coincidence.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)NSA Spying on Americans Through Corporations
The NSA is amassing personal information directly from servers of the providers through video chats, emails, photographs, times and dates of connection to the internet, as well as any other documentation proving association.
---
References
Tate, Julie, Robert OHarrow, Jr., Barton Gellman, and Laura Poitras. Nation & World. The Seattle Times. N.p., 7 June 2013. Web. 08 June 2013.
---
I've heard that Poitras is also Libertarian minded, like Greenwald and Snowden. Could this all be just a coincidence if true?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Does that make the spying OK? What are the credentials of the individual who is OK to report on this in your opinion? I just ask because if the messenger is more important than the message, then who is acceptable to carry this one?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I think is a fair observation.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Fuck Ron Paul is a racist piece of shit, just for starters.
Do we really have to go over this again?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)If the problem you and others have is related to the messenger, then who would be acceptable to deliver the message?
We know the information being reported is accurate, the Government has charged Snowden for telling the world about it. If it was a lie, then it wouldn't be a crime. So the objection left is the messenger. So who would be acceptable?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)The government has charged Snowden with THEFT of classified material.
There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this if you cannot accept those two proven facts.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Theft of classified documents. Ok. But would lies and non existent programs be classified? Your assertion that the information is not accurate because the messenger sucks is asinine. If we are classifying things, then obviously they are true. We don't classify comic books or other fiction. Nobody does for a reason, no one cares if someone reads fiction.
So the information must be true. It is the only logical or rational conclusion. Any other conclusion is like the comic book mentioned above, a belief in fiction over fact.
So it isn't the messenger that people have a problem with. It is the message that the defenders and apologists want quashed.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Can I ask you something? Do you really view the world this way, that no human being is worth the time of day unless they are part of your political party? No person outside the Democratic Party has ever, EVER said anything worthwhile, ever had a conscience, ever did something good and decent?
This kind of thinking is dangerous frankly, so I hope this is not how you actually think, but are just playing devil's advocate or something.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)'..."She replied to this one and sent her public key allowing him or her to send an encrypted e-mail that only Poitras could open, with her private key but she didnt think much would come of it.
The stranger responded with instructions for creating an even more secure system to protect their exchanges. Promising sensitive information, the stranger told Poitras to select long pass phrases that could withstand a brute-force attack by networked computers. Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second, the stranger wrote."
snip
"Once she began working on her surveillance film in 2011, she raised her digital security to an even higher level. She cut down her use of a cellphone, which betrays not only who you are calling and when, but your location at any given point in time. She was careful about e-mailing sensitive documents or having sensitive conversations on the phone. She began using software that masked the Web sites she visited. After she was contacted by Snowden in 2013, she tightened her security yet another notch. In addition to encrypting any sensitive e-mails, she began using different computers for editing film, for communicating and for reading sensitive documents (the one for sensitive documents is air-gapped, meaning it has never been connected to the Internet).
These precautions might seem paranoid Poitras describes them as pretty extreme but the people she has interviewed for her film were targets of the sort of surveillance and seizure that she fears."
beevul
(12,194 posts)Quite a read, but well worth taking the time to do so.