Snowden and Technological Civil Disobedience

Ask Me Anything

Technologies of Self-Defense

No, he's not "channeling" something. He's just thinking. No political thinker, pro or amateur, can do her thinking without existing in relation to all the other political thinking in our literate tradition. He's not "channeling" others any more than they or we will be later "channeling" him.

His distinction between legality and morality alludes to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in which King distinguishes between just and unjust laws and advocates the disobeying of unjust laws while stringently obeying just laws.[1] His assumption that the government has a duty to be a responsible steward of its citizens’ rights stems from the idea of popular sovereignty, “We the People,” famously codified in the preamble of the United States Constitution and distinguished by James Madison in his “Spirit of Governments” from the military or oligarchic sovereignty enjoyed by tyrannical governments.[2] Encryption as a means of activism is an idea that is currently popular with groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Snowden, you mean to say I think, exists in a context.

However sound his philosophical positions were in his response to the question of how to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 presidential election, Snowden failed to answer the question itself.

This is an oddly tone-deaf approach to the text. Like most people being interviewed, Snowden is speaking his mind, not responding to the interviewer as an interrogator. Whether he answered the question in this life-affirming genre is neither mechanically relevant nor as important as what he has to say.

In later responses, Snowden expressed frustration with the realities of American politics. He lamented President Barack Obama’s backtracking on his campaign promises to increase government transparency and close Guantanamo Bay. He also complained about the mainstream media’s inability to produce a healthy public debate on mass surveillance, noting that it is far more interested in what he said when he was 17 or what his girlfriend looks like rather than “the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.”

He's expressing political opinions. I don't know whether it is part of the form of narrative building he "complains" about that we cannot relay his ideas without attributing personal emotions.

Now we have taken what he did not do for what he was unable to do, and provided a large "explanation" for the inability, which "reflects" a number of other ideas whose presence in the essay is now justified by the reflection they cast through something that we construed into existence out of what Snowden decided not to talk about. This is what it means to smuggle ideas.

As a consequence of his celebrity status as a whistleblower, perpetuated by his fugitive status and frequent public statements, news outlets often focus on Edward Snowden’s personal life rather than his revelations of NSA and GCHQ misconduct. Consequently, the public discourse surrounding mass surveillance has been all but replaced by a tabloid-like fixation on Edward Snowden as a public figure. Since media narratives regarding celebrities are necessarily polarizing, much of the public discourse about the Snowden leaks concerns whether Snowden is a “hero” or a “traitor” – not whether, for example, the NSA is acting unconstitutionally by building a 1.5 billion dollar facility in Utah [3] to house between 3 and 12 exabytes of private communications seized without probable cause.[4] Furthermore, as Glenn Greenwald mentions in his own response, Capitol Hill will often quash public debate over the constitutionality of surveillance through bipartisan support for the Intelligence Community, and the increasingly likely prospect that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic Party nomination makes a political solution to mass surveillance unlikely at best.

Although he did not explicitly state that the democratic process is currently nonviable for combating mass surveillance, Snowden seemed to be substituting the question-asker’s assumption that the democratic process is the key to stymieing surveillance with his own claim that the proliferation of encryption and anonymity software will have a greater impact on keeping the United States government in check.

Or, to put it more simply, Snowden is more inclined to rely on technology than politics to deal with the situation, having a global perspective in which the 2016 Presidential election is a detail, rather than the focus of attention. Now, what is your idea in response to that accurate, if somewhat obscurely described, observation?

While Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated civil disobedience to draw attention to unjust laws, Snowden’s solution to NSA mass surveillance is to make it harder for mass surveillance to operate by advocating for individuals, corporations, and organizations to protect their personal communications through encryption and other means. In this sense, Snowden is not advocating for civil disobedience, but for the individual responsibility of utilizing technology to protect ones' digital communications from prying eyes. As Snowden put it, "[t]he idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where – if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen – we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new – and permanent – basis."

Let's leave the antecedents out of it for a moment. Snowden says he thinks technologies of self-defense for civil societies against the states can restore a balance presently distorted. He thinks self-rule in democratic societies depends on that step. What, without name-dropping, is your idea in response?

Why are there footnotes in a web document? If you still need them in the next draft, please make links out of them.

Is The Solution To Surveillance Democracy Or Technology?

-- By JasonRosenbaum - 06 Mar 2015

Ask Me Anything (just don't expect me to answer it!)

In an “Ask Me Anything” thread on the Internet discussion board Reddit, Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, and Glenn Greenwald answered questions submitted by Reddit users regarding CITIZENFOUR and mass surveillance more generally. In response to the question, “What’s the best way to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 presidential election,” Snowden responded with an impromptu essay distinguishing morality from legality and extolling limited government. Snowden asked where we would be today “if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had – entirely within the law – rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed” people disobeying unjust laws, such as anti-sodomy laws and Jim Crow. He went on to claim that “if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren’t just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in [determining our futures.]” Snowden stated that “governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens’ discontent. He then claimed that the key to making NSA spying an issue in the 2016 presidential election is to “devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.” Snowden suggested the adoption of encryption by major technology providers as an example of a system that impedes the government’s ability to interfere with rights.

Snowden’s response channeled a long list of political philosophies from various eras. His distinction between legality and morality alludes to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” in which King distinguishes between just and unjust laws and advocates the disobeying of unjust laws while stringently obeying just laws.[1] His assumption that the government has a duty to be a responsible steward of its citizens’ rights stems from the idea of popular sovereignty, “We the People,” famously codified in the preamble of the United States Constitution and distinguished by James Madison in his “Spirit of Governments” from the military or oligarchic sovereignty enjoyed by tyrannical governments.[2] Encryption as a means of activism is an idea that is currently popular with groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

However sound his philosophical positions were in his response to the question of how to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 presidential election, Snowden failed to answer the question itself. In later responses, Snowden expressed frustration with the realities of American politics. He lamented President Barack Obama’s backtracking on his campaign promises to increase government transparency and close Guantanamo Bay. He also complained about the mainstream media’s inability to produce a healthy public debate on mass surveillance, noting that it is far more interested in what he said when he was 17 or what his girlfriend looks like rather than “the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.”

The Solution Is The Envelope, Not The Ballot Box

Snowden’s inability to answer the question of how to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 presidential election, despite a strong philosophical understanding of popular sovereignty and of civil disobedience, reflects the inadequacy of the American political system and mainstream media to address growing encroachments on civil liberties by national intelligence and law enforcement. As a consequence of his celebrity status as a whistleblower, perpetuated by his fugitive status and frequent public statements, news outlets often focus on Edward Snowden’s personal life rather than his revelations of NSA and GCHQ misconduct. Consequently, the public discourse surrounding mass surveillance has been all but replaced by a tabloid-like fixation on Edward Snowden as a public figure. Since media narratives regarding celebrities are necessarily polarizing, much of the public discourse about the Snowden leaks concerns whether Snowden is a “hero” or a “traitor” – not whether, for example, the NSA is acting unconstitutionally by building a 1.5 billion dollar facility in Utah [3] to house between 3 and 12 exabytes of private communications seized without probable cause.[4] Furthermore, as Glenn Greenwald mentions in his own response, Capitol Hill will often quash public debate over the constitutionality of surveillance through bipartisan support for the Intelligence Community, and the increasingly likely prospect that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic Party nomination makes a political solution to mass surveillance unlikely at best.

Although he did not explicitly state that the democratic process is currently nonviable for combating mass surveillance, Snowden seemed to be substituting the question-asker’s assumption that the democratic process is the key to stymieing surveillance with his own claim that the proliferation of encryption and anonymity software will have a greater impact on keeping the United States government in check. While Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated civil disobedience to draw attention to unjust laws, Snowden’s solution to NSA mass surveillance is to make it harder for mass surveillance to operate by advocating for individuals, corporations, and organizations to protect their personal communications through encryption and other means. In this sense, Snowden is not advocating for civil disobedience, but for the individual responsibility of utilizing technology to protect ones' digital communications from prying eyes. As Snowden put it, "[t]he idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where – if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen – we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new – and permanent – basis."

Our digital communications are analogous to opened letters, and the NSA is making xerox copies of those letters at the post office – Snowden suggests placing those letters in opaque envelopes so that the NSA’s xerox copies turn up blank.

References

1. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” 1963.
2. James Madison. “Spirit of Governments.” The National Gazette. February 6, 1792.
3. Steve Fidel. "Utah's $1.5 billion cyber-security center under way". Deseret News. January 6, 2011.
4. Kashmir Hill. "Blueprints Of NSA's Ridiculously Expensive Data Center In Utah Suggest It Holds Less Info Than Thought". Forbes. July 24, 2013.