And Now For Regime Change In New Zealand...??

Interesting.

It appears that the Snowden, LLC, outfit has decided to attempt regime change in New Zealand, one of the governments involved in the Five Eyes Anglo-American intelligence sharing operation.

The active agents are Snowden himself from his exile in Moscow, Glenn Greenwald from his jungle lair in Rio, and Kim Dotcom from... well, wherever (is he still in New Zealand?) Behind the scenes lurks Pierre Omidyar from his redoubt in Hawaii, whose previous efforts at changing regimes seems to have paid off -- at least temporarily.

The issue seems to be the bulk surveillance of the Kiwi people by the government -- in line with the general Anglo-American surveillance we're seeing of practically everyone everywhere almost all the time. And the fact that the PM has apparently lied about it -- and therefore he must be made to resign forthwith. Or fail to be re-elected. Or something. Whatever the goal is, and I don't think we can tell from the propaganda campaign launched the other day through the Intercept and other outlets, the rage among the people of New Zealand is being whipped to a fever pitch.

And the slug-fest between PM John Key on the one side, Greenwald, Dotcom, and Snowden (with Omidyar in the shadows) got interesting yesterday when Key released documents refuting the claims of the insurgents (why are they insurging in New Zealand again?) and asserting authoritatively that the so-called "smoking gun" email was fake.

If this be true, then there is something up of which we, the Rabble, know -- and can know -- nothing. What we see has nothing to do with what is really going on. It's a pageant for our amusement while the real work behind the scenes continues.

Whatever the case, the government of New Zealand will be roiled until and unless something not spoken is satisfied.

And if it works in New Zealand, the least of the Five Eyes, expect the process to be applied to the rest of them.

Double Helping of Ick

Last night I had more on my mind than listening to a double helping of Ick on the television. Maya Angelou was dead, and I was more moved by her passing than I thought I would be. In trying to compose something of a memorial, many memories were triggered, both of her and of times gone by. She represented something that had the power of good, I think. A curative, even a cleansing power.

But then the teevee was dominated last night not by thoughts or memories of Maya Angelou, not by any mention of her come to think of it -- though there must have been and I missed it -- but by two rather bizarre appearances or apparitions, one on Charlie Rose of the execrable Victoria Nuland-Kagan, in which she went on and on about all the "opportunities" Russia has "missed" to join "the community of nations," the other, of Edward Snowden canoodling with Brian Williams in Moscow (cameo by Glenn Greenwald) that seemed like yet another scripted sales pitch -- or training lecture -- from this man.

I found I was not able to listen to either of them closely. Their words and their bearing struck me as false from the get-go, in Nuland's case partly because of her artificially courtly "diplo-speak" and her distracting hand movements and her constant pushing/catapulting the propaganda; in Snowden's case because of his apparent forthrightness that I've seen too often among government types, a forthrightness that masks layers of lies, deceptions and sub-rosa threats. I said at one point to Ms Ché, "I find I don't believe a word this man is saying."

Both had foils. Nuland's was not Charlie Rose, who was on vacation or something, but the New Yorker's David Remnik who actually comes at the topic of Ukraine and Russia from a position of (some) knowledge, having been the Washington Post's Moscow Bureau Chief during the dissolution of the Soviet Union, understanding and speaking Russian, and personally knowing some of the players on the current Russian/Ukrainian stage including Vladimir Vladimirovich. Remnick wasn't necessarily gentle with Nuland-Kagan. He challenged a few of her daft notions about Ukraine and Poroshenko and Russia's "invasion." She was able to parry by fluttering her hands and arching her brow at his temerity, but as I say, he knows something about what's going on and who the players are. She can't bullshit him the way she can bamboozle Congressmembers, for example. But when he had the advantage over her, he didn't pursue it, no doubt in order to preserve Charlie Rose's access to her and her ilk in the future. Challenging her lies last night was not worth upsetting that applecart.

Brian Williams and NBC had been shamelessly teasing and promoting last night's apparition of Young Snowden for a week, the final tease before the reveal being the statement by Snowden that he was "trained as a spy" by the CIA. Something that has been disputed by former CIA operatives, one of whom is featured in the video clip I posted yesterday. "Everybody" is supposed to have been talking about Snowden last night, at least according to Williams and NBC, as if somehow this hasn't (quite) become a stale story, its sell-by date having long passed.

I was rude last year by calling it a "Summer Shark and Missing White Boy" Story, not really "news" at all, more an entertainment for those so inclined to fill the summer news hole. It was marketed exactly like every other Summer Shark story had been for years, and its content was almost as slight. We knew about the presence of sharks in the water -- and most of us knew it was fairly rare for anyone to be bitten. We knew that people, mostly white and mostly women, went missing sometimes, and finding them or finding out what happened to them was constant summer news fare (remember Chandra Levy?)

We knew too, or at least we should have, that there was a vast and growing corporate-government surveillance state that could and did track our lives online, in intimate detail. Many of us knew that "assurances of privacy" were bullshit on stilts. Not that necessarily anyone in a position to do anything about it cared a whit about what you were doing or saying online.

We knew, or we should have, that cell-phones were essentially radio transmitters and communications via cell-phone are easy for government and corporate droogs to intercept and analyze if they should care to.

We knew, or we should have, that elements of the corporate sector and the government keep voluminous dossiers on every single one of us they can find.

The Snowden Trove offered up some of the details of how the NSA, seemingly in a vacuum, accomplishes some of this domestic and overseas surveillance, and as I pointed out over and over again, the NSA is hardly the most important or pervasive factor in domestic surveillance, that we are being watched by layers and layers of corporate and government surveillance entities (there is often no difference), and the obsessive focus on the NSA alone is and was counterproductive -- assuming anyone actually wanted to do anything about domestic surveillance overreach. Initially, but for a few voices on the margins, there was no mention at all of the intricate interweb of surveillance we are subject to. It was all NSA, all the time.

Later, as the summer faded and the story seemed to languish, mention now and then was made of the way Google and Facebook and other corporate players collect and analyze mountains of data on users and non-users alike -- and how they share this information with the government. When Omidyar entered the picture, there came some stories about how he and his companies, especially eBay and PayPal, are intimately interconnected with government and law enforcement, how he is personally no stranger to the White House, and how his companies' surveillance of users and their data is interlinked with government surveillance activities.

It took quite a while, but eventually, it was pointed out in the mass media that the surveillance state is pervasive, and surveillance data is widely shared between all kinds of public and private agencies and interests, not solely by law enforcement, either.

So here's Young Snowden in a sit-down at an Unnamed Moscow Hotel with Brian Williams, flogging the NSA story once again, and supplementing it with his personal saga of a man on a mission, still working for the US Government, and a patriot to the core.

Of course, Greenwald has a book out, and that seems to be the impetus to a whole lot of these stories, but Greenwald -- though his book was flogged briefly during a segment -- was definitely the bit player in this drama. He was barely there at all.

I found myself not listening to Snowden much of the time, in part because his delivery is so artificial and scripted. I recognized the style of his presentation right off, back in the Summer Shark period, as that of a government trainer, which Snowden says he had been for the DIA (a fact that wasn't widely known until recently). As a trainer, you learn -- or you read -- a training script and you deliver it the same way every time. Pausing for questions, you answer carefully, conscious that what you say needs to reinforce rather than refute the script, and if the script is factually in error, you make note of it and pass that on to your superiors, you do not make an issue of it with the trainees, and certainly not with the public.

That was his initial style, that is his current style. I call it a sales pitch because in essence, that's what it is. As a government trainer you are selling a product: the correct way to do things according to the standards and procedures of your agency.

The fact that Snowden adheres to this style of presentation rigorously despite the fact that he is supposedly this great and amazing whistleblower has always disconcerted me. It's as if there is no "real" person there at all, almost as if he's a robot of some sort -- which in fact he has been during some of his presentations. What he has to say is almost identical in every apparition, there is no deviation from the script, and his personal narrative has been cobbled together and is maintained with great rigor. That as they say is that. Who knows whether any of that narrative Snowden presents is true or not? Much of it is disputed by those who ought to know, but they're in a strange position vis a vis Snowden in that they may "know" but they can't truthfully "say." There is little dispute over the veracity of the material from the NSA trove that's been released so far, though interpretations may vary somewhat. But the tale Snowden tells of himself -- which is a big part of the narrative -- is murky at best.

For his part, Brian Williams was soft-balling the entire time, following a script of his own. It was almost as if the whole encounter had been carefully rehearsed beforehand. Maybe it was, I don't know. But Williams broke no new ground, and he did not challenge Snowden's narrative.  In fact, he constantly reinforced it.

Perhaps the worst thing about both the Nuland-Kagan and Snowden appearances last night is the "normalization" factor. They were conditioning exercises -- among so many we're subjected to these days. They weren't illuminating, they were normalizing a kind of monstrousness. Monstrousness in terms of American international relations with Russia, Europe, and the Ukraine. Monstrousness in terms of the Surveillance State which we're immersed in and which Snowden says he wants to "improve."

The media served the role of courtier in both interviews, more so in the case of Snowden. At least Remnik challenged some of Nuland's bullshit. Williams never challenged Snowden's -- or Greenwald's for that matter.

We the Rabble are just supposed to believe, I guess, and henceforward never question unless given leave to do so by our betters.

Sickening. And more than a little bit frightening...

The Snowden Thing As Farce -- or Is It All An Elaborate Hoax?

Mark your calendars and put stars by it! Young Snowden gives his First American Interview (whut?) Exclusively to NBC and Brian Williams tonight!!!!! at 10pm Eastern Time, 9pm Central, wherein he reveals that he's a fricking CIA Spy!!!!  Bet you never imagined that!!!!

Let chaos and confusion reign!

From the outset of the Snowden Thing, I've suspected that it could be a hit on the NSA by the CIA, done in order to establish Security State pre-eminence. Throughout, it seemed that the NSA was being held up to ridicule and contempt within the Spy-State and Government, while the CIA -- which actually performs a lot of the surveillance and wet-work going on in the world -- got an entirely free pass.

This was made clear as crystal when both the #1 (Keith Alexander, Starfleet Commander) and the #2 (John "BigBooté" Inglis) were forced out of the Agency through early retirements. Meanwhile John Brennan at CIA and James Clapper, DNI, went on and on, despite their appalling lies and dissimulations. It didn't matter -- for them -- what they did or said in public. Only Alexander and Inglis were made to pay for the Snowden revelations, which were of course focused on NSA information gathering, mostly signals intelligence... which was done for the military, for the CIA, for the DEA, for the FBI, for the DHS and for god-knows-who-all.

Anybody with enough clout, it seems, could become a "customer" or "client" of the NSA.

Good to know.

"Out of control..." is the appropriate way to look at it. Indeed, the term was repeated over and over again. The NSA was out of control, and there was no effective oversight from any quarter, and Oh, didja know that this Alexander mook is kinda whack? Didja see his Starfleet Center? Never mind that it was ordered up by Hayden, Alexander's predecessor, who was then assigned to CIA.


Jeebus.

Let's be clear. NBC is a CIA conduit, as is the New York Times and WaPo, indeed as is most all of the mainstream -- and a good deal of the alternative -- media.

We've known this, haven't we, for a long-long-long time, but since we don't have an abundance of non-compromised news sources -- much as Soviet citizens didn't have much in the way of non-government news sources back in the day -- we let the knowledge of the propaganda we're constantly exposed to percolate in the backs of our minds, and we pay attention to those parts of the mainstream and mass media that 1) confirm our biases; or 2) entertain and amuse us.

"Truth" is not really an element of the process, because "truth" is subjective -- at least so it seems in the post-modern world.

So the fact is, we have no way of knowing what's "true" and what's not with regard to Snowden's story or Greenwald's story or really anyone's story when it comes to this matter. It's clear that a narrative has been constructed which the very makers of that narrative then jiggle and even shatter from time to time to induce cognitive dissonance. Lies? Some of it, sure. Deceptions? Certainly, why not? Story-telling, marketing, and above all drama? You got it.

Most people have not been able to use the knowledge they've gained from the Snowden Affair for any practical purpose. There is no sign whatsoever that the revelations have caused any part of the Surveillance/Security State to back off the people. All they've done is make some adjustments regarding precedence and priorities with regard to their corporate partners.

Apart from that?

Not much. Really not anything.

We are just as surveilled as ever, if not more so. The systems performing the surveillance get ever more sophisticated. And the transparency of those systems is ever more occluded.

But we've had quite a debate, haven't we? Who's the Top Dog is now settled. Right?

Pfft.

For the Record -- First Look Media and NBC News Partnership

The partnership between NBC News and Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media was briefly noted on NBC Evening News Tuesday, then was made quite explicit on tonight's news when a promo announced the impending "exclusive" interview of Edward Snowden by Brian Williams in Moscow.

Eric Wemple at the Washington Post has now expanded the announcement somewhat:

The interview is sure to produce some memorable exchanges, but the way that NBC News pulled off the coup is noteworthy as well. NBC News has a “collaboration agreement” with the outfit that these days publishes Greenwald’s work — First Look Media, the venture funded by billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Greenwald is a staffer at the Intercept, First Look’s digital magazine on national security matters.

So did the Greenwald “collaboration agreement” snare the Snowden interview for NBC News? For starters, Snowden is a strong-willed sort unlikely to take interview orders from anyone, though his relationship with Greenwald is airtight (he’s in a just-published selfie with Greenwald & Co. in Russia). According to the network source, NBC News approached Snowden via several avenues, one of them being through Greenwald. Though Greenwald didn’t negotiate the terms of the agreement, the NBC News source concedes that Greenwald is among a small number of people who can assist in making contact with Snowden, who is living in Moscow.

The agreement between NBC News and First Look Media contains no financial terms, says the NBC source. It’s merely what the network calls a co-reporting arrangement, in which the two participating outlets share resources in working on the almost always complicated surveillance stories that spring from the Snowden document dump. Responding to an e-mail inquiry, Greenwald himself says that the agreement “simply provides that we will work together on selected NSA stories, on a story-by-story basis, when it will help the reporting to do so.”

To complicate matters a bit, Greenwald worked as a freelancer for NBC News in between his departure from the Guardian and the launch of the Intercept. Together they produced four stories, with Greenwald receiving $750 a pop. In this February investigation, for instance, NBC News used Snowden documents to expose how British intelligence waged war on hackers. Greenwald is credited as a “special contributor” for the piece. In January, NBC News published a story stemming from Snowden documents on how British intelligence spied on Facebook and YouTube. That one, too, listed Greenwald as a special contributor.

There is more at the link.

If anyone wants to look into it, there is most certainly a story to be found in the various arrangements that have been made with and by Omidyar, his employees, and the media enterprises they have partnered with, but I don't know who would ((dare)) find out the whole story and publish it.

We live in interesting times...

[Note: there have been previous indications of the partnership between NBC and Greenwald/First Look, though the first time I heard it mentioned explicitly was on Tuesday. If anyone has an earlier explicit reference, it would be interesting to put together a timeline...]

Edward "Robot" Goldstein Speaketh

Interesting. I picked this up over at FDL, and several things struck me about it:

A) Surprisingly, Snowden is able to speak quite clearly and the video of him is quite stable in this "robot" presentation as opposed to the herky-jerky, unwatchable and barely understandable presentation ("through seven proxies!!!") at SXSW.




B) He strikes me as someone making a sales-pitch for a product which he cannot quite show or describe. He talks in endless loops about something we're supposed to just "know," I guess, and ultimately it doesn't amount to anything concrete at all.

C) 'Taking back the Internet'? What is this supposed to be? A "Magna Carta?" Would this be some sort of agreement between the Internet Barons and a diminished government such as was concluded at Runnymede? An agreement, by the way, that only protected the Barons from the Crown, not the villeins from their overlords. And which was not anything remotely resembling "democracy."

All in all, I was quite taken with the technology -- my the set up in Moscow must have been dandy, and who did it? But the content? As with so many TED talks, not so much.

The Public Had A Right

I'm listening to Young Snowden's ARD interview for German television that was posted at Cryptome the other day. It's kind of repetitive given the multiplicity of stories already aired and published about NSA surveillance and the Security State, but it is one of the few times that Young Snowden himself has been seen/heard from in all the HooHah.

I watched a few minutes of the video of the interview and noted with interest that it seemed to be conducted in a very luxurious Russian hotel suite or possibly in a suite of rooms in an expensive new dacha, perhaps just outside of Moscow.

Regardless of whether it's a hotel or a dacha, if that is where Young Snowden is now being housed, rather than a place selected specifically for the interview, I wouldn't agree that he has "given up" much comfort in his (likely temporary) exile. It appears, in fact, that he is living in high style -- and very expensively -- in Russia. Moscow, after all, is one of the most expensive cities on Earth. It was pointed out that when he was supposedly trapped at Sheremetyevo Airport, the cost of one of the roomettes he was believed to be occupying while there was on the order of $600 a day (given that they rent by the hour), and people were wondering then who was paying for his upkeep.

Even in Hong Kong, where stories now suggest he was for weeks or even a month, he was staying in a very luxurious hotel at considerable expense -- for someone. Initially it was said that he was paying his own freight from his savings from his employment, but if you can sort through the confusing timelines that have been aired/published, each slightly different and some rather remarkably different, you see he had a rather spotty employment record, at least "officially." How long he was actually employed in his various contracted and in house positions (with the CIA, NSA, Dell, and Booz Allen, among apparently others) is something of a mystery. His postings were apparently scattered widely -- among them Switzerland, CONUS, and eventually Hawaii -- but none of them seem to have been for very long. A few months or a year tops.

There's nothing particularly amiss with that kind of record in the Federal Service. That's how they generally hire; employment is frequently intermittent, and it may be with a contractor rather than with the government itself. One's assignment, status, employer of record and posting location can change quite suddenly. It's not unusual to stay on this irregular status for years. This practice keeps the total number of FTE Federal employees lower -- following a Congressional mandate.

As I listen to Young Snowden speaking to the German interviewer, I'm reminded, very strongly, of some of the training personnel I worked with during my time in the Federal Service. It is as if he is conducting a training session to his interlocutor, and for a moment I wonder -- was that his actual job? Was he responsible for training staff to accomplish various spytech tasks, and is that a reason why his work was fairly intermittent and his employer of record went back and forth between agencies and contractors? I have no way of knowing, of course, but from what I've seen and read (and based on my own experience), I wouldn't be surprised. It would also help explain how he manages to "know" so much and yet... not.

Knowledge is compartmentalized in government and among its many contractors. While various low-level individuals (as Snowden apparently was) may have extensive knowledge of a wide range of programs and activities, as a rule, their knowledge is incomplete. They only know what they need to know for a particular assignment. Some of what they may see or have irregular access to as part of that assignment is likely to be incomprehensible because it's not something they have been briefed or trained on. That may be a reason why Young Snowden doesn't want to be responsible for releasing information about Surveillance/Security State programs and operations -- because he cannot "know" for sure what these slides and other information actually contain. So he (supposedly) leaves it up to journalists to vet it and make sense of it -- in consultation with... government. Yes, it's important to remember, as has been repeated fairly often, that every story that has been published or aired about these programs and operations has been done in "consultation with" government agencies and officials. Exactly what that means has never been clarified, of course, nor will it be. But given the repeated references to "legal" issues and potential "legal" jeopardy that reporters and Snowden may be in if they don't tread a very fine line (notwithstanding all the charges that have already been leveled at Young Snowden, though not -- so far -- at Greenwald or any of the other reporters and publications involved)  in releasing these top secret and other elements of the Snowden Trove, it seems to me that there is an ad hoc collaboration between the government and the publications and individuals involved in the stories to, let's say, limit the damage all around.

This is quite different than the situation with the Manning Trove and WikiLeaks, though there may be a superficial resemblance. Clearly, the participants learned from the mistakes made in that one, though so far as I could tell, there was actually nothing in the Manning Trove that was actually damaging to the government. Not even the "Collateral Murder" gun camera video. What the War Logs and Cables showed was military and State Department business as usual, much of which had already been reported, some of it extensively. What was odd  to me about it was that so many people -- literally millions -- had almost unimpeded access to the full trove, just as Manning did, and the Defense Department waited months before doing anything substantive to restrict access. (State, on the other hand, acted almost immediately). To me, this was bizarre behavior. A breach of this sort, had it happened in my agency, would have been acted on and plugged within hours. I had some experience with relatively minor security breaches in my agency and know how they were handled. It was nothing like the situation with the Manning breach. Nothing at all.

With the Snowden Breach, it's not entirely clear what has and has not been done by the NSA in response. There's apparently been a series of ongoing investigations, but beyond that -- and the "consultations" which take place before airing or publication of any story about NSA programs and operations -- I don't know.

I notice, as well, that Young Snowden refuses categorically to reveal any new classified information in this interview, referring to his preference that journalists do that. This is clearly part of the legal line he must toe -- but why, exactly? According to his legal advisers, and the DoJ, he's been charged under the Espionage Act, which strictly and severely limits the defenses he can utilize.

But wait. He is a guest of the Russian Federation, and doesn't actually need legal defenses against the United States in Russia. So what's going on?

Is this a case in which he adhering to an agreement he supposedly has with the Russian Federation not to provide any information that can harm the United States while he is a guest of the RF? I don't know. None of these supposed agreements he's made have been detailed for the public.

What he has detailed, however,  and what the various news organizations that have aired and published this stuff have reinforced, is that the various national and international surveillance agencies of the global security state (let's call it what it is) have the capability to "watch you" in real time, no matter who you are, wherever you are, and whatever you are doing. This capability is frightening.

Be Afraid.

Be Very Afraid.

The Government Is Watching You!!!!!!

Except that over and over again, it's pointed out and acknowledged that the government is (probably) not watching you at all, but in fact, private commercial interests are. They're not just watching, they're tracking and recording and monetizing everything you do, all the time. That is, they're doing it if they have access to you, which they do if you are using any kind of electronic communications.

Young Snowden is intent on letting us know that the government is surveiling one's activities, but he dismisses, with an airy wave of his hand, the fact that commercial interests are the major culprits in this more and more universal surveillance regime because he claims -- wrongly -- that commercial interests don't have the power of government to execute or incarcerate you. Either he's grossly ignorant or he is deliberately deceiving (as so many who make this bogus claim are). Private interests and corporation power more and more are indistinguishable from government power. Surely Young Snowden knows that. Later in the interview, he acknowledges that private companies -- like Booz -- should not be doing the kinds of surveillance and security activities that are properly a function of government. But they do.

Just to be clear, the government maintains massive databases on every one of us; they can, should they want to, discover just about anything on just about anyone, either through their own data collection or by purchasing data from commercial interests -- or just by using the Google, for criminy sakes. We are constantly under surveillance by government and private interests, almost without exception.

There is no doubt in my mind that the public has a right  to know these things. The question is whether they have a right to do anything about it. I think they do, but that makes me a troublemaker at the very least. Doing anything about the all encompassing and pervasive surveillance we are under means fugging up and taking down whole systems, and that is something Young Snowden has repeatedly claimed he has no interest in doing. What he has said over and over is that he wants the public in the United States and abroad to have enough information about the NSA's surveillance programs and operations to make informed decisions about their appropriateness and continuation. Apparently, he assumes that an informed public has any real say in these matters. Or... maybe he's assuming something else. That, as he's said and others have pointed out, the knowledge of this surveillance is sufficient to control people's behavior.

I got this notice in my email, about the February 11, "Day We Fight Back" demonstration,  and I have to ask, "Just what do they expect to accomplish?"

Aaron Swartz lost his life in pursuit of something bigger than himself, on behalf of open access to information people need or even might need in their lives.  The Day We Fight Back is supposed to be in honor of Aaron Swartz and his work to make information a common currency not the exclusive property of a handful of institutions.

I'm all for what he was trying to do -- and his death so shamed JSTOR that most of their millions of documents are now available for the public to read online for no charge as opposed to their previous practice of charging individuals and institutions a veritable fortune for access to almost any of their document trove.

If there were some substantive reforms of -- or preferably abolition of  -- the Surveillance/Security State as a result of the Snowden Revelations, then I would be all for it. So far, I have seen little or nothing to encourage me on that front.

But I have seen some people who realize they are being "watched" curb their activities.

That's worrisome. There are many ways around the surveillance/security apparat, but they seem to be the purview of a tiny fragment of the public. How will the general public come to understand and use them? Or is that not a matter we should be concerned with?

People will do what they will do, and no surveillance regime will keep them in check forever.

----------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: There is now a Vimeo video of the interview. One doesn't have to download a zip file. But according to Jonathan Turley, YouTube video versions, and apparently some other video versions are being taken down. According to him it is a concerted government action. I suspect it has more to do with ARD making copyright complaints, but that would be too unconspiratorial of me... heh.



UPDATE: And sure enough, the Vimeo video of the interview is now gone. Government plot? Ohhhhh... if Turley says it is, it must be, right?

The complete interview transcript is apparently available at the German NDR site. But the embedded video doesn't work for me, and it may be blocked in the US.

Strange...

Greenwald has said (December, 2013, via his very active Twitter account) that the purpose for the knowledge of the panopticon which he and Young Snowden and the others have been at some pains to reveal to the shocked and disbelieving world is to ensure and enforce conformity.... as was pointed out by George Orwell in "1984" and which was what Naomi Wolf said back in June of last year was her instinct about why the these revelations were being made in the way they were. She was pilloried for daring to raise questions about the motives and methods of those who were so prominent in this story and for pointing out the obviousness of some of it. To quote Wolf in June, 2013:

d) It is actually in the Police State’s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled, and that awful things happen to people who challenge this. Which is why I am not surprised that now he is on UK no-fly lists – I assume the end of this story is that we will all have a lesson in terrible things that happen to whistleblowers. That could be because he is a real guy who gets in trouble; but it would be as useful to the police state if he is a fake guy who gets in ‘trouble.’

 Further, there have been recent headlines regarding the urge some outspoken members of the "intelligence" community (sometimes an oxymoron) have to "put a bullet" in Snowden's head. This recent headline grabbing exactly parallels the ArsTechnica examination of Snowden's online persona prior to his revelatory reconception.

Now that the President Has Spoken regarding "reform" of the NSA, and it is obvious to all sentient beings that there will and can be no substantive reforms of such an agency, it appears that the "debate" Snowden, Greenwald, et al, wished to instigate has concluded.

Those who questioned were correct. But it doesn't matter. Nothing (much) has changed, but now we know with perfect certainty that we can be watched at any time by those Machines of Loving Grace... and so, if we know what's good for us, we will conform and behave. Which is the whole point of letting us know about the watching and the watchers.

Those who denounced the questioners are left to ponder what's next on the agenda...

Let Us Reason Together -- the Panopticon (5)

The Panopticon was Jeremy Bentham's 18th Century enlightenment notion of how it would be possible for a very limited staff of keepers to control a large population of inmates by making it possible for one keeper to look into any cell simply by turning around. The beauty of it was that the inmates would never know whether and when they were being watched, and that fact would work with innate human nature to enforce proper behavior within the prison. Rebellions and uprisings wouldn't occur. They couldn't. None could be organized without detection. There would be less need for brutality and the usual cruelties prisoners were subjected to. Harmony would reign.

Well, there was more to it than that, of course, but the general idea of the All Seeing Panopticon seemed perfectly rational at the time, and in due time, versions of Bentham's vision were tried with varying results. Part of the rationale for the Panopticon, in addition to the ability to watch prisoners at will, was the isolation of inmates, each to their own cell, rather than being held en masse in cages in the dungeons. A way to control unruly types through isolation was long known and understood, but employing it in general was considered too expensive. But the Panopticon made isolation economically reasonable because it reduced prison staffing requirements substantially.

Ultimately it was understood more or less widely that the simplest way to keep prisoners and reduce rebellions was to hold them in isolation and keep watch on them in ways they could never fully know while severely punishing any infraction of increasingly arbitrary and draconian rules.

Harmony would reign.

Then it was realized that the same principals that underlay the Panopticon for Prisons could be applied to the general population, thus curbing non-conformity and rebellion among the Rabble. The only problem was that there was no technology to do it efficiently and broadly until very recently. But even with more or less inefficient and primitive tactics, the principles of the Panopticon were employed in all sorts of social and political situations The watched actually become the watchmen and women and enforce conformity of mind and body without the necessity for an overly large and intrusive surveillance apparatus. Sure enough, it worked.

Until it didn't.

Harmony reigned temporarily, sometimes for quite a long time, and then it broke down.

Studies have been going on ever since to figure out why that breakdown occurred and to ensure that it never happens again, at least never again in that way. Our Chinese friends may be furthest along in figuring out how to suppress rebellion and enforce conformity on a more permanent basis. But that remains to be seen. As China undergoes as thorough a remaking of its social economy as it has ever endured, rebellion is constant. At the same time, there seems to be a level of relative harmony and peace, in the midst of fierce competition, that is unprecedented. From the perspective of many social engineers, China is obviously doing something very right. But what it is and exactly how they are doing it isn't entirely clear.

The recent hoo-hah around the world about the NSA and to a lesser extent (much lesser extent) about the more or less pervasive corporate and lower-level law enforcement surveillance of entire populations is related directly to the notion of the Panopticon and the principles of its operation. What we have learned is that the keepers now have the technology to keep an eye on every one of us essentially all the time or whenever they want, and we can never know for certain whether we are being watched at any particular moment. Thus our behavior is controlled in theory and largely in fact just by our knowing that we can be watched and any deviation from accepted norms in our behavior noted -- and can be used against us at any time our keepers choose. Even if we don't necessarily deviate from the norm (whatever that is declared to be at any given time), patterns of behavior can be manipulated to create false "deviations" which can then be utilized for prosecution or persecution -- or to sell you something you neither want nor need but which your "pattern" suggests you are susceptible to purchasing with the right persuasion.

It's a wonderful thing from the point of view of those who make and operate these surveillance/marketing/and population control systems. As for the general public, what I've taken to calling the Rabble, it's not so wonderful, but as long as it is not too intrusive, it seems, most people don't much mind that it is going on. Many may actually appreciate it on a visceral level.

Think Facebook, Twitter, and the endless devices of our modern world which make instant communications possible and inevitable and which for the most part provide the user with no privacy at all. Anyone can observe anyone else, and many, many people want to be observed in practically every aspect of their lives pretty much continuously. They can easily get their wish, more easily than ever before in human history. Nearly the entire world can vicariously participate in nearly anyone's life through modern technology.

That includes governments and their private sector sponsors. (Increasingly, "government" and "corporate" are distinctions without a difference as they subsume one another.)

The Panopticon principle as it is today is a versatile and useful tool of population control employed by corporate-governments on a broader scale than ever before in history. Because so many people are eager to share their lives with others through social media and the like, it is remarkably easy to get people in general to adopt technology which utilizes the Panopticon principle for control.

The notion that one can have privacy under the circumstances is absurd. You can't. No matter what you do, you cannot opt out of the technology of observation and surveillance that is built in to the devices, hardware and software of our lives, and even the loudest "privacy advocates" know this full well. There is no "secret place" within our devices where we can whisper secrets to one another without being overheard, any more than inmates in Bentham's Panopticon Prison could ever be sure they were unobserved.

The Revelations we've been exposed to the past few months are the details of a surveillance regime that is pretty much universal at this point and cannot be undone.

Where did the idea that electronic communications were somehow private come from?

It came from marketing. Marketing which obscured the facts.

One was sold the idea of encryption and secure communications, but it was never real in the sense that your online communications were ever truly private  and inaccessible to interested parties -- as we're finding out with more and more detail. A few adepts may have been able to temporarily secure and privatize their own communications, but for most internet users, there never was a time when the bulk of communications couldn't be accessed either by the carriers or by governments whenever and however desired. And there's never been a time that I was aware of that carriers weren't eager to sell their bulk information on their customers to government. The architecture of the internet is purpose-designed for this very practice, as most of us once knew but seem to have forgotten.

The ability to surveil the activities of users online -- constantly and automatically -- is one of the key industry ideals and motivations, both to be able to sell something to them and to be able to keep tabs on their potentials for disruption and rebellion (what's generally called "criminality.")

This has always been true of the intranets that gave birth to the internet -- which itself has never ever been either "free" or "private." Marketing myths that have long been sold to the public promise otherwise, of course, but they are simply false and always have been.

The notion of "privacy" itself is actually a recent social development that is in many ways tied to marketing ideas of the early 20th Century ("Blame Bernays.")  What I think the idea of universal privacy and the right to privacy came out of was the understanding that the Overclass of the 19th and early 20th centuries used their position to live private lives out of the view of the Rabble and more importantly to develop products and policies in secret from the public, policies and products which were then imposed often by main force, without consultation with or approval by the public. The idea was that if the public didn't know (at all or very much) about how their Betters lived their lives and what was being planned, they wouldn't be able to object or rebel before the policy was instituted, and they could be induced to admire rather than object to the lives of their Betters.

The idea of "privacy" as a general matter turned that understanding of what was being done to the public by the Overclass on its head by proposing a general right for everyone to the same sort of private lives their Betters had long enjoyed.

That's where I think the idea of "privacy" as it is commonly understood in the western world came from. It was heavily marketed as something desirable and necessary to a full and rewarding life -- because Our Betters had it. And you want to be like them, don't you?

Which is not to say that personal space of some sort ("A Room of One's Own" as it were) has not always been with us. It is the fetishization of privacy as the defining characteristic of what it means to be "human" that simply never existed before very recent times, and for most people, it doesn't compute at all.

Most societies exist under forms of formal and informal surveillance. The discovery that Our Own (Exceptional) Society is also under surveillance, and that our corporate-government is a -- or perhaps the -- leading purveyor and employer of surveillance technology is much less of a surprise than our media is making it out to be. We knew, but we made less of it, for the most part, than apparently we are supposed to now that we really know.

Yet there is no plan or movement to reduce or eliminate mass surveillance, quite the opposite. Instead, we are seeing any number of calls to restrict surveillance activities of government while leaving in place or even expanding corporate surveillance -- on the false premise that corporate surveillance is benign. It is not. It is extraordinarily invasive and potentially more dangerous to individual liberty ("") than anything the government might be able to do. Which is of course why corporate surveillance gets a pass.

The current drive for online privacy has many components, of course. One of them is intended to make it difficult or impossible for government to have access to certain aspects of one's life online, akin to the constitutional restrictions placed on government regarding reasonable search and seizure of one's home, papers, and effects requiring a warrant issued by a competent court before any such action can be taken. This is the Fourth Amendment restriction -- which unfortunately has been so riddled with holes and exceptions that it's all but moot in today's world. If some court actually wants to return the 4th to something akin to its original intent, I'm all for it, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Meanwhile, it's hard to imagine real online privacy unless the whole architecture of the internet is reconfigured to provide it, and I don't see that happening any time soon, either. Well, at least not on the "free" internet that most of us use.

There could well be another, "secure" internet established for use by "members," say by subscription -- and I'm not so naive to imagine such a thing doesn't already exist in some respects, I'm just noodling for the moment. This is where I see the "privacy" movement (such as it is) headed. We'll have a two-tier "public access" internet, part of which is "free" -- in that use does not require payment (whereas access still will) and which is essentially open to corporate-government surveillance, and there will be another, more costly, internet (parts of which already exist) that is not quite so open -- though still not entirely secure -- for use by those who choose what we might call a higher level of service, and there will be a multiplicity of proprietary, highly secure, internets not available or accessible to the public at all, which will be used by the High and the Mighty. All of these things are essentially already in place, they just need some tweaking to become the standard.

When the Snowden Thing first broke, Naomi Wolf expressed some reservations about it based on her personal knowledge of whistleblowers and how they had approached their duties and actions in the past. The Snowden Thing was a distinct outlier compared to previous episodes of whistleblowing. She noodled for a bit wondering why it might be so, and she suggested that there might be an ulterior reason for exposing the doings of the NSA in the way it was being done: when people know they are being watched -- or rather, can be watched at will -- they tend to modify their behavior, "conform" in a word, almost instinctively. Letting people know that the NSA was "watching" them was, she thought, a useful way to ensure conformity. It's based on human psychology and the principles behind the Panopticon.

Snowden partisans immediately denounced and smeared Wolf for daring to raise questions about the true nature of the Snowden Thing. It was done in a manner that formed the template for denouncing and smearing anyone who expressed reservations about Snowden's motives or authenticity. These denunciations are a form of propaganda -- quite obvious to anyone who has made a study of propaganda and its effects -- a form that was raised to practically an art form by previous totalitarian regimes (Stalin, Hitler, Mao...) and it's effective, at least for a time.

And then it isn't.

Let Us Reason Together -- Things Fall Apart (4)

The heat of the Omidyar/Greenwald "partnership for a new global media" hasn't produced any light at all to date, and given Twit Trends, it may never. There is something going on that we, the Rabble, are not privy to. What it is may never be revealed, but the signs aren't looking very promising right now.

"Pierre" has never had any kind of public profile or persona to speak of. He's always been in the shadows -- at least until recently. Now that he's declared his intentions, however, he's come under a lot of scrutiny, from people already in the media (such as Mark Ames and Yasha Levine who've been plugging away on the oligarchy beat for many a long year) and many others.

Greenwald has a long and storied history of turning on, attacking and smearing individuals who are natural allies in what he says he wants, in the quest for civil rights and liberties, and in the realms of media, law, and justice.

Together, the scrutiny of "Pierre's" dealings with the world and his companies' actions (particularly eBay and PayPal -- but there is more, much more) and Greenwald's... social difficulties... seem to be combining into a perfect storm that may lead to the undoing of the "new global media" venture before it even goes live for the first time.

The difficulty of the project was inherent, of course. The idea of forming a media partnership with a somewhat shadowy billionaire to concentrate on investigative journalism exposing government secrets and wrongdoing sounds pretty straightforward and necessary... until...

When you realize that "government" is operating today essentially as a service to and adjunct of corporate interests and power, the notion of exposing its secrets and wrongdoing may not be what it initially appears to be, especially when the exposition is being underwritten by one of the oligarchs (for that is what "Pierre" truly is) who is intimately involved in the nexus of government-corporate power through his companies and apparently through his charities as well.

If you don't ask what the intent is and just blindly and mindlessly accept that any exposure of government secrets and wrongdoing is a priori a Good Thing, then you probably don't understand the nature of government operations today and the many connections between corporations and government that have almost completely blurred the lines between the two.

To set an objective of exposing "government" secrets and wrongdoing while not mentioning the level of corporate control of the governments under which we live, suggests that the real intent of this "new global media" venture is to enhance corporate power and authority and diminish (perhaps extinguish) "government" authority over certain corporations.

Ultimately, one has to ask, "Is it all that wise to sacrifice what little government power and authority remains and submit entirely to corporate authority and control?"

I always ask, when people are pontificating about 'civil liberties' -- "Liberty for whom? To do what?" They never have an answer. But in Greenwald's case, it has long been clear that he is an advocate of "liberating" corporate interest from government control or authority, and he has little or no interest in personal liberties beyond his own. His defense of the abomination of the Citizens United decision was a clear enough indication of where his sympathies lay. And it's not with the People at all.

This may be why, in some measure, he tends to alienate so many people who would otherwise be his natural allies.

On the other hand, "Pierre" and his various enterprises (including a small media venture in Hawaii) seem to be allied with the National Security State in many intricate and intimate ways. The prosecution of the PayPal 14 is one of the highest profile examples of that alliance.

And that's where things have started falling apart.

Alexa O'Brien, who is as dogged and intrepid a New Media journalist as there is, who calls them as she sees them, covered the trial of the PayPal 14 and was horrified at the case presented by PayPal -- owned by "Pierre" -- that asserted falsehoods and damages that were never done, insisted on prosecution for relatively minor online offenses, and required severe punishment for those involved. Wait, said Alexa, this is wrong. This is corporate wrongdoing on a significant scale and an abomination. "Pierre" is involved in this matter, and his companies are pursuing to the limit these individuals that did not damage him or his companies in any sensible way but who fought back against his blockade of WikiLeaks, a rival in the "new global media of wrongdoing" game...

And Greenwald is now linked with this outfit?

She called "Pierre" out on it, and she's called Greenwald out on it. How can you be against "government" secrets and wrongdoing while protecting the kind of corporate viciousness she's seen in full cry in the case of the PayPal blockade of WikiLeaks and the trial of the PayPal 14?

She gave an interview in Germany (Episode 105: Jung und Naiv) in which she reiterated her reservations (linked in a previous post) about "Pierre" and his new media venture and refusing to endorse it or Greenwald's participation in it.

Shortly, Greenwald and O'Brien met on Twitter and had at one another in a very public spat in which, apparently, Greenwald was so rattled, he outright lied about whether Alexa had ever raised the PayPal 14 issue with him when he spoke to her about joining the New Media Conglomerate.

Understandably, Alexa is pissed.

Greenwald has a tendency to double down in these sorts of situations, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him smearing Alexa in numerous full-throated denunciations. It never seems to matter to him who he alienates or what sort of wreckage he leaves behind him as long as he gets what he wants. Which -- among other things -- is power, fame, and money.

Alexa is strong. Greenwald is ruthless.

And "Pierre" wants... what?* Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? But from the signs he wants to make government subject and subservient to his demands.

------------------------------------------------
Oh, and any bets on how soon Snowden is offered immunity and repatriated?
------------------------------------------------

* The intimacy with which "Pierre's" companies are allied with the Security/Surveillance State is a subject of a good deal of crowd-sourced research at the moment. Every day, something new comes to light, as should be expected given the depth of penetration the Oligarchy has among those who surveil us and secure them from us. There seem to be a number of overlaps -- shall we say -- between Omidyar's empire and that of the Booz Allen investment conglomerate (IIRC, Booz is wholly partially owned by Carlyle, but I could be misremembering [Indeed].)  In other words, my speculation the other day that perhaps Snowden and "Pierre" hooked up in Hawaii well before the Revelations of the Story of the Century, LLC™ may be at least partially correct. It's hard to believe there would be "no knowledge" between them given their proximity and their co-interests. Ahem. (Did they [Snowden/Pierre] meet in a Honolulu strip club? "It would be irresponsible not to speculate..." Heh.)

But time will tell. Unraveling this thing is going to take a great deal of investigative journalism, and we can bet that none of the principals in First Look will have the slightest interest in doing it.

Clever.

This particular document may be getting close to the "smoking gun..."

 http://www.minds.com/blog/view/264199355085361152/5-unnerving-documents-showing-ties-between-greenwald-omidyar-and-booz-allen-hamilton

Let Us Reason Together -- Year End Edition (1)

This has been quite an exciting year, hasn't it?

Nothing quite like it has come down the pike in quite a long time, and how all the various elements fit together, providing they do, is yet to be seen.

The highest profile "news" story was of course the Summer Splash of the Snowden Thing. Pssst: The NSA is spying on you..." Yes, it is. Well, maybe not on you personally, but then again, maybe yes, on you.  Personally.

We already knew that practically anything we did on the Internet was an open book to spooks and marketers, we've known it for years. Sometimes we've even made use of that knowledge to freak out both the spooks and the marketeers, sometimes with hilarious results. So it was passing strange, in my book, that the Summer Story of the Century became such a cause célèbre throughout the latter half of the year. Of course, the drama of it all, the cat-and-mouse, the jajaja, the personalities of the players, and the government response all made for an excellent narrative, and that's what media sells these days, so it will probably continue for quite a little while to come.

The entry of "Pierre" Omidyar into the fray, by setting up a high profile media shop specifically for Greenwald's continued... erm... pleasure ... added a whole other layer to the frolic and frenzy. (I should note that I use "Pierre" in air quotes because of a wonderful interview (the interview has been reclassified "unlisted," so sharing is discouraged) Alexa O'Brien did with Stanley Cohen regarding the PayPal 14, who plead out on really nasty charges brought by "Pierre's" PayPal against them for interfering with their work product.  Or something. Cohen uses air quotes throughout when mentioning "Pierre" and given the fact that the man himself doesn't have much of a public persona or profile, it seems appropriate to follow in the tradition...)

This media firestorm (which I indelicately called a "Summer Shark and Missing White Boy Story" throughout its summertime incarnation) led to a rather remarkable Study Group and Report by insiders commissioned by the White House and released the day after the President invited the highest ranks of the Silicon Valley nobility to meet with him and reason together on what should be done now with regard to the Surveillance/Security State under which we are all privileged to live. Praise Be and Bow Down.

After reading the Report, I came to the conclusion that much of it had been pre-prepared and that the upshot of it all is to move the discomforting aspects of mass surveillance out of the purview of the NSA and put them into other cubby-holes where they can be better monitored or at least left to fester. Or something . 

Whatever the case, there is no indication whatsoever that any of the powers usurped by the Surveillance/Security State will be curtailed let alone abolished. 

Now it should be noted that in all the firestorm and frenzy over the Snowden Thing, there has never been even a hint of interest by the principals, Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras, et al, of loosening the grip of the Surveillance/Security State on the masses. Hardly. All they EVER wanted, they have said over and over, was an "informed debate" over the issue of mass surveillance, and having now had that debate, Snowden now asserts his goal has been accomplished. 

All righty then.

That was quick and efficient, wasn't it? Don't you feel better? I sure do. /s

Whew!


"One Nation, Under Surveillance...." ♫That's America to Meeeeeee....♬

Surveillance of the whole population is not going away, no matter what; who controls it and what is done with the data will be adjusted to better comport with the interests and desires of the SV nobility. You -- and I -- will have nothing substantive to say about it. Have a nice day. Terms and conditions apply.☺

Assuming for the moment that I am correct and the Surveillance/Security State will not be compromised or go away in our lifetimes, but that it will be reconfigured for the comfort and convenience of Our Betters -- as all things always are -- how would one prefer to be surveilled? Would you prefer surveillance conducted by and for the government or by and for corporate interests?

That's the choice, the only real choice, we're being offered.

Myself, I don't much care for either alternative, but as in the case of elections, we don't really have an option, and unlike elections, we can't really opt out -- without completely altering one's lifestyle and location, and essentially disappearing. Well, that may be the option many choose in the not too distant future, but so far, we're not quite there yet.

The upshot of the Snowden Thing, it seems to me, is that in the near-term surveillance of the Rabble will be undertaken by and on behalf of corporate interests (and let's not forget that "Pierre's" eBay and PayPal are huge and global players in this endeavor) with ever greater restrictions put in place on government access to this data. Basically, the idea will be that the private sector will track and compile data on everyone (as they do now) and that only when the private sector interests suspect evildoing by an individual will their data be turned over to government for pursuit and prosecution. This is pretty much the current eBay/PayPal model as it is, though according to Mark Ames, eBay/PayPal is quite amenable to turning over user data when governments suspect the evildoing by users. It's all very merry. And according to some eBay/PayPal users, part of the business model for these outfits is routine closure of accounts and theft of assets. Oh my! Could it be? Apparently it is, but my accounts with PayPal have long been empty, so I wouldn't exactly know.

Now I say that "no surveillance" is the correct approach, at least as an interim measure, but my Betters tell me that is not on the table for consideration. The only thing we get to choose from is whether the dominant party in the Surveillance/Security State shall be the "government" or corporate interests. With the intent of diminishing "government" participation to the extent possible, to be involved only at the beck and occasional call of the corporate sector.

As handmaidens to corporations, we already know how useless to the People our governments have become. There is no sign at all that this will change, and there is no sign at all that either Snowden, Greenwald, or "Pierre" have any interest in changing it. If anything, the signs are they wish to ensure the continued diminution of "government" in the face of corporate power. 

So.... what do we do about it?

That question will have to wait for the New Year for deeper consideration...

Stretch Goals: Young Snowden Comes Again

Ack! Emmanuel Goldstein Lives!@!

By now perhaps, everybody who's interested has read Barton Gellman's extended pre-Christmas interview with (and paean to) Young Snowden in the WaPo, and many have probably also seen Snowden's Alternative Christmas Message to Britain. (How very.... erm, Alt-Royal of him, né?)

The message is strong and rather clear, if you listen with cocked ears and pay attention to nuance and verbiage.

While many wonder about the subtext in the Intelligence Community Review Panel Report, which is really quite a radical document when you get past the fact that it's come out of the government itself and most of the panel members are tied directly into the Surveillance State, the subtext running rampant through the Snowden "availabilities" is glaring, and to many, it's pretty obvious.

We could go back to Snowden's initial interviews in Hong Kong with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, but I would dearly love to have been a fly on the wall of the interviews he gave to Guardian editors in New York before that. That was when The Story of the Century (as it has been dubbed by some wags) was solidified and massaged into its soon-to-be world wide media firestorm form. Listen carefully to what Rusbridger and Gibson say to Charlie Rose about meeting with Snowden in New York before he went to Hong Kong, how they decided to make this the story it's become, and notice how Greenwald practically doesn't figure in it at all. It's almost as if Greenwald were little more than a pawn in a much larger game the Guardian was playing.

But as we make note of these things, let's be clear about British media, including the Guardian. They don't always tell the truth. Part of the British media culture is fantabulism, what we would call "making shit up." We saw some of this more openly than usual during Rusbridger's flailing accounts of the "Government" ordering the destruction of computers at the Guardian which supposedly contained the Forbidden Snowden Materials, a story which suddenly "appeared" out of nowhere amid the report of the somewhat theatrical detention of David Miranda at Heathrow. After withholding the story for months, Rusbridgers accounts of what had happened (and his phony "evidence" thereof) simply stank to high heaven, to coin a phrase, and if they were intended to do anything but distract from the Miranda story, it seemed to be for a specific audience's entertainment. (I would say it was a fabricated incident that was intended either to cover up something else or to make clear to the Authorities that the Guardian was no longer in possession of any pertinent Snowden material -- if it ever had any to begin with.)

It may well be that the Guardian never had possession of the Snowden documents, that no media outlet has ever had possession, and that the documents have only been in the possession of a handful of journalists, Greenwald, Poitras and Gellman among them.

So what have the ongoing theatrics been about?

Well, of course, they are necessary for marketing purposes. You cannot keep the story in the public eye for very long without a dramatic arc. So it has been. But at the same time, there has been remarkably little revealed that wasn't already pretty well understood by those who care about matters of surveillance and privacy. It was already well understood, or it should have been, given all the stories in the media  (including frequently in Greenwald's columns) about it prior to the Snowden Emergence, that one literally has no privacy in electronic communications and has very little privacy in any other kind of communications. "Rights" to privacy are a matter of government and private sector whim, the amount of money one has, and one's ability to thwart the all-pervasive Surveillance State under which more and more inhabitants of the earth now live. Every bit of one's life is liable to become part of the Surveillance State's data hoard, and there is essentially nothing most individuals can do to prevent it.

Public and private sector data acquisition and storage on every one of us for all kinds of purposes has been built in to the architecture of the Internet, and it's not going away.

This was known in general years before Young Snowden's advent, something that's been pointed out repeatedly but is routinely scoffed at by Snowden/Greenwald partisans in and out of the media. "Yes, but..." is the typical opening the scoffers use, "you didn't have documentary proof until Snowden came forth, so you actually knew nothing. Bow down."

This, of course, is horseshit. The presence or absence of documentary proof in these situations -- especially when there is all kinds of other evidence to draw on, including reams of testimony -- has little effect on the truth of the matter. In fact, relying on documents to the exclusion of testimony, which became the MO of the Snowden camp, can rapidly obscure the truth. Which may have been the point all along.

As I saw what was going on, I became more and more alarmed. The obsessive focus on the NSA in the summer's stories was obscuring the truth about the extent and pervasiveness of the Surveillance State. Surveillance by the private sector is the aspect that affects most people directly, daily, and constantly. Local and other law enforcement surveillance, not directly connected with the NSA data accumulation, is the next level of surveillance that has a broad effect on individuals. There are many other forms of government surveillance that affect individuals all the time, from the IRS and state and local taxing authorities, to the Social Security Administration, to the Census Bureau and Post Office. This government surveillance activity is going on all the time and can have interesting and sometimes severe consequences on individuals and as well as whole communities.

At no point during the obsession with NSA surveillance was the pervasive extent of public and private surveillance made clear in the major mass media outlets hawking the Snowden Revelation stories. It still hasn't been. Now and then, there would be brief mention of law enforcement and private sector cooperation with the NSA (though how it worked was never entirely clarified), and occasional mention would be made of FBI overreach and misbehavior, but beyond that, practically nothing was said about the Surveillance State as a whole and how it interrelates and interacts to affect and control so many people's lives.

So much was being left deliberately unsaid, it seemed to me the point of the firestorm was to enable something (I knew not what) to take place in the shadows, protected from view by the glare of the NSA scandal spotlight.

Comes Snowden in his Gellman interview and he seems to be acknowledging there was "something else" on the agenda.

Yes, well. That was obvious.

But what was/is it?

Let us examine. There is this term, for example, that Snowden uses in one of his more widely quoted quotes:

““For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission’s already accomplished,” he said. “I already won. As soon as the journalists were able to work, everything that I had been trying to do was validated. Because, remember,

I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself.”

“All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed,” he said. “That is a milestone we left a long time ago. Right now, all we are looking at are stretch goals.” Washington Post

And what, we may ask are these "stretch goals" of which he speaks?

Well, there's no way of knowing what he's referring to exactly, as he seems to speak in koans and technobabble when not declaiming a prepared text, but the term "stretch goals" is something to be wary of. As I understand it, it's a business term that is a way to demand the impossible from staff, primarily sales staff, as a means to ensure "creative" thinking about problems. So if all we are looking at now are "stretch goals" -- the mission having been accomplished -- then perhaps he's describing the motivation for this whole affair.

As has been pointed out a number of times, neither Snowden nor Greenwald have ever called for the abolition of the Surveillance/Security State, far from it. All they've ever said they wanted was for the public to be well informed enough about the surveillance they are under to have a "debate" about it. Greenwald said a couple of weeks ago that the "debate" has happened (though how it could when 90% or more of what actually constitutes the Surveillance State has been largely ignored), and Snowden is now claiming his "mission" is complete.

The Surveillance State "debate" has led to a number of proposals in congress, and to an extensive report to the President regarding recommendations for "reform" of the intelligence community. Apparently, that's all that the makers of this hoo-hah ever wanted from the  public disclosure of some of the NSA materials Snowden took but says he no longer has.

Of course there is the little matter of Omidyar's Baby HuffPo -- which may or may not ever see the light of day -- and what it will be devoted to, but at this point, what its function may be in realizing Snowden's "stretch goals" is anyone's guess. From outward appearances, it may have nothing to do with them.

According to what I have recently read, the Omidyar First Look Media Project was initially incorporated in Delaware in August, well before Greenwald and "Pierre" say that they came together for this very purpose. Because incorporation takes a while, especially in a case as complex as the Omidyar project, it's likely that the project was greenlighted sometime in the spring or even earlier, which would be about the time that Snowden went to work for Booz Allen in Hawaii and began collecting documents about the NSA's overreach. Just as a side note "Pierre" has a home and a media outlet in Hawaii. Whether Snowden was aware of it, I don't know, although I assume everyone in Hawaii knows about it.

Wouldn't it be something if this whole thing was engineered by "Pierre" -- whose companies are supposedly tied in rather intimately with the Security/Surveillance State in somewhat unusual and surprising ways -- as an exercise in Billionaire Power over government?

Oh. My...


And the "stretch goals" of this exercise would be???

Been Reading the Report

You know, this one. (308 page pdf)

Interesting to say the least, and hardly what one might have expected given the hoop-lah and hoo-hah over the summertime.

At least from the cursory view that I've been able to give it so far, it appears to be a nearly complete capitulation to the Snowden Faction among Our Rulers.

Very interesting indeed.

Well, I intend to read it more closely and will evaluate my initial impression anon.

"[He] shall not seek and [he] will not accept..."

The histrionics surrounding the spitballed notion that Young Snowden might receive amnesty in order for the Spooks (of which he is one, let's not forget) to persuade him to return to this country with the "rest" of his hoard of NSA secrets is interesting.

When the notion was first floated on the CBS Evening News last Friday, few seemed to notice. If I hadn't seen the "60 Minutes" segment which was presented on the CBS Evening News during which the idea was floated, I doubt I would have known about it until Monday, as I've sworn off "60 Minutes" for cause.

It's a fairly radical idea coming from the desk of someone charged with dealing with the Problem of Snowden and His Hoard, but there you are. We live in interesting times. The discredited leaders of the Agency are all in a dither over it, running around with their hair on fire denouncing the Very Idear as nonsense and perfidy and a terrible precedent, yadda, yadda. Which I'm sure it is, but at this point -- unless arrangements that we know not of have already been made -- it's an "idea" being run up the flagpole to see what the response will be, it is not an offer.

Outside the Agency, the keening and garment rending is just as strong, especially on Team Greenwald's bench where the idea is being met with fierce resistance and denunciations. Of course if Snowden counter-defects back to the USofA, it could be interpreted as a slap in Greenwald's face for so crassly cashing in on the Hoard. Which leads me to wonder. Has a deal been attempted? In other words, are Spooks in contact with Snowden directly? Oh my goodness if they are. Would he be willing to follow through with the request of his father's (I believe it was) that he be granted legal amnesty in order to return to the USofA and escape from the clutches of the Putin Security State, and not be prosecuted at home?

On the Resurgent "Great Man Theory" and Sarah Harrison's Harrowing Heroism

One of the most interesting factors of the current series of crises afflicting the human species and the globe is the resurgence of the Great Man Theory of socio-political operations.

Now, I've never been much into the Great Man notion, though many, many people are. They seem to believe -- sincerely -- that the only way out of our predicament is through the agency of a Great Man, and they go to extreme lengths to identify and promote likely candidates. They also interpret history as if only the actions of the Great Men of the past mattered. It's a pernicious concept in my view, one that leads to authoritarianism at the least, totalitarianism if taken to a logical conclusion.

The Great Man, of course, could be a Woman; there may be a lot of lingering gender inequality, but when it comes to Leadership, women are now thought to be almost as capable as men. Almost.

Recently, Jesselyn Radack produced a somewhat shocking piece of Great Man propaganda and posted it over at dKos. It turned my stomach. But this is the kind of thing that happens routinely when the objective is to drive adherents away from one set of elites and toward another, by fostering extreme levels of truly mindless loyalty toward individuals -- selected by other Great Wo/Men.

Snowden Who?

All eyes are now on the upcoming American war of aggression against Syria/Iran (they're joined at the hip, dontchaknow) and the NSA Scandal has been all but forgotten. Of course the NSA would have provided all of the necessary signals intelligence for the successful prosecution of this war of aggression because that's what they do, what they're supposed to be doing at any rate, on behalf of the Department of (War)Defense, of which the NSA is a part.

You'd never know any of that from this hysteria over NSA surveillance of you'n'me, for none of that ever entered any of the stories about the agency and its whistleblower, Young Snowden. Of course not.

What the agency is supposed to be doing on behalf of the Department of Defense, of which they are a part, was never at issue. It was all the other things they had the potential to do and sometimes did as an exploit or lark that raised all the libertarian hackles out there. Yes, most of those hackles were libertarian, and most of the story-telling was typical of libertarian propaganda about government, criminal government employees, and potentials for government intrusion into all of our lives, yadda yadda.

I've seen it too many times to count on the internets.

But here we are, literally moments before the launch of yet another war of aggression in the Middle East, and the news cycle will admit of nothing else for the duration.

After Labor Day we will once again enter some vestibule of hell.

Had our attention been focused on the looming new war of aggression, we might have raised a stink about it well before now. But instead, we'll slouch into a killing spree in Syria, which may precipitate further hostilities with Iran, and That Old Man's Hard On may finally find release as he sees yet more brown people blown to smithereens. It's his greatest joy.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Propaganda and its uses have matured since Orwell's day; but the upshot of endless war is the same.

On The Question of Exemptions From Security State Scrutiny

During the past month or so, we've seen an explosion of interest in the National Security/Surveillance State apparatus, and we've learned about its vast reach around the world and its apparent ability to spy on anyone at any time. How such spywork product is used is still somewhat murky, as we really have no idea which Americans have been spied on by the NSA (leave aside for the moment the question of foreign targets) and to what object if any. There have been suggestions, however, that when the NSA "targets" an American it is for the purpose of domestic law enforcement or active terrorist investigation, and that essentially all the NSA provides in such cases is raw digital data that may or may not be useful in the investigation. But we don't know that. We don't know a lot of things about how our rulers keep tabs on us or what they do with the information.

What we do know is that a number of individuals and institutions have demanded to be exempt from the sort of blanket scrutiny everyone else is under, starting with "the press."

There was, after all, something of a trial balloon on the topic of uncalled for domestic surveillance when the AP Thing (ABQ Journal story; if not a subscriber, you will need to answer a marketing question) broke back in May (was it? doG, it seems so long ago.)  The issue then was slightly different in that phone calling records of AP reporters were sought and looked at by DoJ in connection with an investigation of a leak of high level information to the press. Sound familiar? Sure. The upshot was that not only was the AP marching around in High Dudgeon over this "Chilling of Freedom of the Press," they would demand and have essentially received an exemption from this kind of surveillance scrutiny going forward. Whoo-hoo!

As I pointed out at the time the story was making headlines, though, EVERYONE was subject to the kind of surveillance AP was demanding an exemption from, and the real issue was the intrusive/invasive that was probing everyone's phone records and doG knows what-all with or without warrants. This was in May, remember, a solid month before the NSA story broke in the Guardian. We knew -- or at least "anyone who was paying attention" knew -- that we rabble and proles were being spied on by Our Betters in both the government and the corporate sectors the government serves, and many of us knew how that information was being used, too. Anyone who was or is involved in Occupy, for example has more direct knowledge of the National Surveillance State than most other Americans by far, but America's Muslim community has had much more ongoing negative experiences with it, and black and brown communities in general have been its targets for generations.

At some point though -- variously dated to 2001 (prior to or almost immediately after the installation of the Bushevik regime) or 2005 (when certain devices were installed)  -- the surveillance started including everyone, all phone calls and other telecommunications, at home and abroad, and for a time -- maybe still -- there was someone assigned to surveil every physical address in the country. It was long ago out of control, and the NSA wasn't the chief culprit.

The principal base-line culprit all along has been the corporate entities that collect information on all of us, that analyze and store it, and that share it for a price or in trade with one another and with government agencies. That's where the data-haul comes from for the most part, and quite willingly, too, despite the lies and the denials of many of the corporate culprits.

So comes the AP Thing in May, and AP is demanding an exemption, because of the First Amendment. Never mind the Fourth Amendment because invoking that would mean everyone would be exempt from blanket surveillance, and what's the fun of that?

AP got their exemption in July as the link above describes. After the AP story broke, a FOX "news" reporter was revealed to be under similar surveillance due to another leak investigation, and wah-lah, FOX, too, was given the same exemption as AP. In fact, all "legitimate" so-called news orgs were given the same exemption in the DoJ announcement. Determining who or what is "legitimate" became an issue, but it's clear enough from the announcement that bloggers and independent media are not considered "legitimate" by the corporate media or the DoJ. So at least we know that not everyone who practices journalism is considered "legitimate" -- and we can be pretty sure where that will lead, too.

Needless to say, despite a rather full court press by various media, including much of New Media, Blobosphere and all, the story of surveillance of the AP (and later of FOX) and their demands for exemptions on Constitutional grounds failed to catch the mood of the country, I think because people wondered why should they be exempt while everyone else is being watched all the time?  Constitution? Feh.

On the other hand, when the NSA story broke in June, just about a month after the AP story broke, all holy hell broke loose because, surprise, the upshot of the initial few stories was that EVERYONE was under surveillance by the NSA, and there was really nothing anybody could do about it -- that is if they chose to live in the Modern World.

Oh. Well. What a surprise. "We didn't know..." And we demand....? Going from knowledge of surveillance to the Ask has been something of a rocky road to say the least. Just what is it Snowden, Greenwald and the rest have in mind as the goal as it were? We don't know. They initially said all they wanted was a "debate" about the surveillance they were revealing; then Greenwald the other day in his Argentine interview said that they wanted people to know that certain software was being employed to hoover up all phone and other electronic communications pretty much everywhere and suggested that by knowing this people could take precautions and even elude the hoover. But whatever the case, at no point have Greenwald or Snowden suggested ending the Surveillance State. They haven't even called for the repeal of the legal underpinnings (like AUMF, NDAA, PA, and FAA) that have enabled it and encouraged its metastasis.

I find that rather curious myself. No, all they say they want is the "debate" and for people to have knowledge that they are being surveilled.

All righty then. Implied is the notion that some people should be exempt from blanket surveillance, starting with technically adept people, for example, who know what to do to elude the surveillance bots through strategic technical gamesmanship. I've seen some of them post instructions on how to do it, and it's mostly gobbledygook, useless for everyday people, and probably non-functional in any case due to coding and other errors, whether accidental or deliberate. The fact is many geeks are not inclined to ensure that you are free of surveillance, only that they themselves are. Liberty!

Meanwhile, when the NSA domestic surveillance story was still somewhat new, Congresscritters held hearings and demanded of the spooks giving testimony that they, sitting Congresscritters, be exempted from surveillance, and they were assured that they were indeed exempt. I don't think many of them believed it though, as some of their colleagues had been clearly and obviously surveilled over the past many years, and some of them seem to be convinced that prosecution and blackmail are not unheard of in the Hallowed Halls due to findings of the surveillance bots.

Of course the press and media (well, that part which is "legitimate") demanded -- and got -- their exemption.

Anybody else seeking exemption from general surveillance? You would think the corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms would be automatically exempt. That is where Power is concentrated, yes? Can't have random spooks snooping around among the Highest of the Mighty, can we? In fact, corporate board rooms and bankers' counting rooms are where much of the snoopery of the rest of us originates, or at least where the plots and plans for it are laid and implemented. Let's not fool ourselves into believing it's any other way.

Of course, people in Greenwald's somewhat... interesting... position would naturally want their own exemption (albeit, he hasn't asked for one specifically for his ownself, not that I know of anyway). Expat world traveler journalist/polemicist/propagandist/provocateurs such as he might actually want to avoid the security/surveillance state for some reason, I don't know what, but he has never indicated that he's suffered personally in any particular or general way from the surveillance he must -- I mean MUST -- be under... hm. How does that work, I wonder? Is he surveilled but exempted from consequences? Or is he not surveilled at all? Or...? Is it something else?

Well, we don't know, and we're unlikely to ever find out, either. Wheels within wheels, don'tchaknow. It is quite an interesting game being played by individuals and institutions seeking to perfect their power relationships with one another, if you will. That much is obvious to me. Their rivalries and controversies have little to do with us, after all. This is a reason why the NSA/Snowden Thing strikes me as a bit overwrought given their apparently top-level at 40,000 feet overlook position, not generally one that affects individuals, nor necessarily does it affect contending institutions in their power plays. Or does it?

What exactly does the NSA do that interferes with the machinations of the Highest of the Mighty? We get some clue now and then when we hear dark rumblings of intellectual property piracy and unauthorized sharing of corporate marketing and other plans through some sort of spy network, but it is a murky tale at best and rarely told with any clarity at all. Is the NSA the lead agency in these matters? Mmm. Could be.

If as may be the corporate boardrooms and the R&D departments are the real playgrounds of the NSA and other spooks, despite denials (who really believes them, anyway?) then the demands for exemption that are background noise right now may have more to do with the nature of the NSA controversy/"scandal" than we know, and once that's worked out to mutual satisfaction, this Thing will settle right down.

We've been living in an era of institutional failure and collapse. Practically everything we've relied on for social, political, and economic stability in our lifetimes has proved to be worthless or has collapsed in failure. Yet wealth and power are ever more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and more and more authoritarian and exploitative rule is being imposed on the masses. In the overall context of institutional collapse and failure and the general imposition of authority and exploitation of the masses, the spook stories and consequent impotent rage they inspire is very useful for the interests who seek to consolidate power over the rest of us.

To me, that's the reason why the NSA story is being played to such a high level of public exposure this Shark Season. Nothing will be done about curbing domestic/international surveillance of the masses, though the masses will be whipped to a frenzy of anger about it. As Naomi Wolf pointed out, the Surveillance State is useless for controlling the masses if they don't know about it. Now they know. They have had an opportunity to vent about it, but their venting results in nothing. Nothing changes. It's the way of the world.

Behind the curtain, however, in that Deep State which actually rules us (oh yes, the Turks have nothing on US), there are many adjustments going on, both here and abroad, and fierce contests are under way over which surviving institutions will hold the primary reins of power. Make no mistake, Greenwald, the Guardian, and more than likely Snowden, are Players in that game. What role they have on the chessboard is an open question, but they are clearly not uninvolved observers and dispassionate Truth Tellers. They are obviously working on behalf of something greater than themselves, but exactly what that might be is still murky -- I have called them Corporate Libertarians, but that doesn't describe their actual roles and goals.

Nor does it reveal where all this is headed. On the surface, it's just another summer shark story, another missing white woman, for the rabble to fret over. But go a bit deeper, and ponder who and what is being "exempted," from scrutiny by the surveillance state, as power is consolidated on behalf of surviving institutions in this era of institutional collapse, and we can start forming a pretty good picture of how the story may play out.

We'll see.