| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Is The Solution To Surveillance Democracy Or Technology? | | | 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.
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.
| >
> | 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 exists within the context of contemporary political philosophy. 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. 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. 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.
| | |
| |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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 to house between 3 and 12 exabytes of private communications seized without probable cause. 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.
| | | 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?
| |
<
< | References
- Martin Luther King, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” 1963.
- James Madison. “Spirit of Governments.” The National Gazette. February 6, 1792.
- Steve Fidel. "Utah's $1.5 billion cyber-security center under way". Deseret News. January 6, 2011.
- Kashmir Hill. "Blueprints Of NSA's Ridiculously Expensive Data Center In Utah Suggest It Holds Less Info Than Thought". Forbes. July 24, 2013.
Why are there footnotes in a web document? If you still need them in the next draft, please make links out of them.
| | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|