For those not familiar with him, Maass is an interesting journalist mainly focusing on international affairs. He's been following the surveillance story for a bit, and has an archive of some of his articles from the past ~10 years or so here: http://www.petermaass.com/articles/
"I was surprised to realize that there were people in news organizations who didn’t recognize any unencrypted message sent over the Internet is being delivered to every intelligence service in the world. In the wake of this year’s disclosures, it should be clear that unencrypted journalist-source communication is unforgivably reckless. "
Not only the news people. My country's politicians as well. They didin't even change the standard code for voicemail, exposing all their messages to anyone with their number. For any whistleblower trust is the key. Even if you can trust the journalist/politician, you need to know if they know how to guard their communication.
(Edit: typo's)
I've seen Universities have been security for their professors than politician's laptops. It's truly bewildering - then there is the fact that the technology MPs are generally not well versed in technology at all - witness the myriad of awkward speeches given on tech topics in governments around the world. Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in office?
>>>Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in office?
These two things are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, most tech people distrust politicians and would never enter politics. Likewise, most politicians have no desire to learn about technology, or delve deep into things like cryptology and how to make technology secure from prying eyes.
FYI - the majority of representatives in the US Congress are attorneys:
"168 Representatives and 57 Senators have a law degree. Of these, five (Representative and two Senators) also hold a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree."
Also keep in mind most of the people in congress are also from the baby boomer generation. They grew up long before the internet even happened. I've been told by a few friends most don't even use smartphones and barely use email. Maybe in another ten years this will start to change, but for now, don't expect too many computer science majors to enter politics.
Yes. Italy: Stefano Quintarelli, MS in Computer Science, he brought internet in Italy in the early 90s, then sold i.NET and founded a few startups. One of the smartest and most brilliant people on the planet.
He now sits in parliament. Unfortunately, he had a bad car accident a few months ago and he's still recovering.
This thought hit me hardest yesterday (I even blogged about it !). We are wide open to commercial and political abuse from anyone with access to this level of surveillance.
I brain dumped a few of the ways, but really, those who could help government really remain anonymous are actually helping NSA gather the stuff (i.e. GCHQ)
I suspect the most likely approach is a open collaboration and funding from say Brazil or Uruguay or Japan. Folks whose governments are being listened to but not getting the juice afterwards.
Through all of this, one of the things that impresses me about him is how well-spoken he is.
Obviously, the interview was done over encrypted email, so he had the opportunity to choose his words carefully, but even so.
During the interview his father did with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, he also impressed me with his speaking ability, even under a high-pressure situation like that.
If you want to see what irresponsible journalism is like, read Benji Smith's book "Abandoned Ship", especially the part about "Jenna McJournalist". Laura hasn't (to our knowledge) behaved like that.
There's probably enough trust between them now that he isn't going to get upset if a hash of his email doesn't match a hash of her quote of him. She's also likely smart enough to realize that he could drop her at any time and the other news organizations would be lined to up for exclusive access. So she's going to act responsibly towards her source.
One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
and now distracts everybody that his goal is to "protect the security." In 2006 he called G.W. Bush on the same ground!
Even the "secret" FISA court, the only court in charge of NSA, decided (in the decision that is still classified as "secret") that what NSA does is unconstitutional.
The President still does the distraction of the public with "protect the security." Don't let this remain unnoticed.
"Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically avoid contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything was a surprise."
Ouch — poor choice of words. He indirectly classified himself as a spy. The media will be all over this. He needs to be more careful with his language.
You're right. I think he was referring to himself as being a spy before all of this, as in working for the US intelligence agencies. Probably? I'm not sure what else that could mean.
I'm wondering why this was not removed before publication. I mean, surely this was sent back to Snowden and his lawyer(s) before going to press. Maybe it was intended?
Like his comment about the presses job to check the government. I don't know if the press still values or even consider this their job. Do we need to have a charity news organization that focused on checking the government.
There really isn't much to see here. After reading I thought I had missed something, perhaps one of those "page 1 of 30" things at the bottom. But to get the "full story" I'm told to buy some magazine or whatever. So much for releasing information in the public's interest. It's time to Jason Bourne this thing and make some MONEY off of it!
"P.M.: Laura started filming you from nearly the start. Were you surprised by that? Why or why not?
E.S.: Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically avoid contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything was a surprise. Had I intended to skulk away anonymously, I think it would have been far harder to work with Laura, but we all knew what was at stake. The weight of the situation actually made it easier to focus on what was in the public interest rather than our own. I think we all knew there was no going back once she turned that camera on, and the ultimate outcome would be decided by the world."
He intended to "skulk away anonymously". Then the journalists get involved, and it seems that it was too late for that. This seems to imply the journalists had something to do with that.
I don't know how to stop this sound like and accusation or judgement, which its not supposed to be, and generally speaking Im a Guardian supporter, but I get the feeling that he was led in much deeper than he wanted by these journalists. May be he was pushed? Maybe he decided? I don't know.
Yes, it hard to get off a moving train, as it were. But I wonder if there was as much coercion as there was motivation on his part. I wonder how much control he had once the journalists got involved. Or maybe that is normal for things like this.
I'd love to know a lot more about how this worked in general.
You are totally correct, I did read it completely wrongly. I stand corrected. No excuses from me.
Now, why cant I see an edit (or delete) link to correct my mistake? Having realized I made that mistake, and that there for my comments are completely pointless and wrong, I want to edit in a note to acknowledge the fact. But I cant.
He wrote a bunch of articles in the '90s as well, but doesn't seem to have them on his site. However his reporting on the Bosnian War was collected into a book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679763899/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...
Most relevant here, he wrote an article in mid-June criticizing the focus on Snowden and Assange as personalities: http://www.petermaass.com/articles/we_steal_secrets_misses_t...