Greenwald's Microsoft NSA Bombshell is Frustratingly Coy and Deliberately
Deceptive
By Bob Cesca . July 17,2013
It keeps happening. Last Thursday, Glenn Greenwald published another
bombshell article in The Guardian based on one of Ed Snowden's leaked
documents. The article details how Microsoft has provided user data for
NSA's PRISM surveillance database. Then, before the ink was dry on the
article, Greenwald issued Snowden's ridiculous threat against the U.S.
government, thus obliterating any debate about the Microsoft documents and
skewing the debate back to Greenwald and Snowden. And all the while,
Greenwald continued to hector anyone who dared to write about the duo's
antics in lieu of writing about the new documents.
Okay, fine. Let's talk about the new documents.
Like most of The Guardian's previous NSA articles, the reporting is full of
clever omissions intended to lead readers to believe something that's not
backed up by the article itself. Take the lede for example:
Microsoft has collaborated closely with US intelligence services to
allow users' communications to be intercepted, including helping the
National Security Agency to circumvent the company's own encryption,
according to top-secret documents obtained by the Guardian.
Once again, we're being duping into believing that Microsoft is handing over
all user communications, including content, without any warrants or
oversight. Readers have to descend 13 paragraphs into the article to
discover this line: "Targeting US citizens does require an individual
warrant." Worse, readers have to dig to paragraph 32 before the we see the
word "metadata." Not unlike the classic use of search warrants against
suspected criminals, or, say, FBI eavesdropping on suspected organized crime
syndicates, data belonging to people who are suspected of wrongdoing is very
likely what's being collected here. But ssshhh! Greenwald wants you to think
they're spying on you personally.
On Tuesday, Microsoft issued a statement that included the following
remarks:
-If a government wants customer data - including for national security
purposes - it needs to follow applicable legal process, meaning it must
serve us with a court order for content or subpoena for account information.
-We only respond to requests for specific accounts and identifiers.
There is no blanket or indiscriminate access to Microsoft's customer data.
[...]
-All of these requests are explicitly reviewed by Microsoft's compliance
team, who ensure the request are valid, reject those that are not, and make
sure we only provide the data specified in the order.
The article resurrected the "direct access" claim and referred to PRISM as
"the top-secret Prism program." We've since learned that there is no "direct
access" to tech giant servers, even though Greenwald continues to cling to
the idea suggesting that the drop box explanation "makes no sense." Here's
Microsoft on the "direct access" claim from its Tuesday statement:
We do not provide any government with direct access to emails or instant
messages. Full stop. [...] When we receive such a demand, we review it and,
if obligated to we comply. We do not provide any government with the
technical capability to access user content directly or by itself. Instead,
governments must continue to rely on legal process to seek from us specified
information about identified accounts.
The article also revealed that NSA can "intercept web chats" without saying
anything about what kind of warrants, individual or otherwise, are issued or
who's participating in the "intercepted" web chats. Are they between two
Americans? Two foreign targets? Who? Are they actually "intercepted" or
handed over by Microsoft?
Then there's this line: "One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype
video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14
July 2012." The phrase "PRISM monitoring of Skype video" contains no context
or explanation. Again, they want us to believe this is happening to everyone
who uses Skype. They don't say whether individual warrants are issued or who
specifically is being monitored.
I should clarify here that Greenwald isn't the only reporter on the byline.
He shares credit with not one, not two, but four other reporters: Ewen
MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe. So to be fair,
all five reporters are collectively guilty of presenting yet another piece
of shoddy, agenda journalism that, while presented as hard news, barely
stands up to scrutiny.
All five authors are complicit in this murky, leading article, which is made
even more opaque by the fact that they ballyhooed "top secret documents" and
"files provided by Edward Snowden [that] illustrate the scale of
co-operation," yet decided not to post any of these monumentally important
documents. The article described the documents as "NSA newsletters" that
were issued by the Special Source Operations (SSO) division. Snowden once
called SSO the "crown jewel" of NSA, which makes a visual taste of the
newsletters even more tantalizing.
Instead, the Greenwald Five quoted just nine brief sentences from the
newsletters (or documents or files or whatever), while simply paraphrasing
everything else.
The day after the article was posted, Greenwald wrote on Twitter: "The doc
is one long entry/bulletin system - we quote all the parts relevant to the
story." Also, "About primary docs: 'document' for the Microsoft story is an
[internet], ongoing NSA bulletin over 3 years - we quoted all relevant
parts." So is it one long newsletter or many documents as in "top secret
documents" plural? Who the hell knows. Because he's refused to tell us.
Again, naggingly weird, coy and distracting.
The internet is uniquely suited for providing screen grabs of important
passages captured from the documents, or a PDF of the entire series of
newsletters. Being able to actually read the documents would've provided
context and first-hand documentary evidence. But Greenwald et al chose not
to let us see the evidence itself. Why?
Glenn Greenwald recently said, "I approach my journalism as a litigator.
People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove
it." This one statement sums up his style quite well. He writes like he's
preparing a legal case, which, for many readers seems to resonate, while for
others it's often a forced-march to wrestle through his seemingly bottomless
prose.
Most of Greenwald's writing is opinion journalism and not an objective hard
news. So he's absolutely entitled to take whatever approach he chooses to
engage in his mission to persuade his jury - in this case his loyal readers.
The editorial standards for subjective, polemical opinion articles are
vastly different from straight reporting. Now he's serving in the latter
capacity where, for the first time, he's had to pursue a source, ask
questions, examine documentary evidence and compile it all into objective
news copy - the who, what, when, where, why, how complete with a lede and an
inverted pyramid flow.
His articles fail to hold up to objective, textbook hard news standards. And
this with four other reporters helping him. The result? Articles with
scare-headlines and deceptive, incomplete claims guiding readers away from
the truth instead of closer to it.
(Hat-tip to JM Ashby.)
==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment