Q & A: Edward Snowden speaks to Peter Maass

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/snowden-maass-transcript.html

by teawithcarl • 13 years ago

217 43 13 years ago

alan_cx3• 13 years ago

"P.M.: Laura started filming you from nearly the start. Were you surprised by that? Why or why not?

E.S.: Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically avoid contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything was a surprise. Had I intended to skulk away anonymously, I think it would have been far harder to work with Laura, but we all knew what was at stake. The weight of the situation actually made it easier to focus on what was in the public interest rather than our own. I think we all knew there was no going back once she turned that camera on, and the ultimate outcome would be decided by the world."

He intended to "skulk away anonymously". Then the journalists get involved, and it seems that it was too late for that. This seems to imply the journalists had something to do with that.

I don't know how to stop this sound like and accusation or judgement, which its not supposed to be, and generally speaking Im a Guardian supporter, but I get the feeling that he was led in much deeper than he wanted by these journalists. May be he was pushed? Maybe he decided? I don't know.

Yes, it hard to get off a moving train, as it were. But I wonder if there was as much coercion as there was motivation on his part. I wonder how much control he had once the journalists got involved. Or maybe that is normal for things like this.

I'd love to know a lot more about how this worked in general.

jedbrown• 13 years ago

"Had I intended ...", not "I had intended ...". He's making a hypothetical statement.

alan_cx3• 13 years ago

You are totally correct, I did read it completely wrongly. I stand corrected. No excuses from me.

Now, why cant I see an edit (or delete) link to correct my mistake? Having realized I made that mistake, and that there for my comments are completely pointless and wrong, I want to edit in a note to acknowledge the fact. But I cant.

quantumpotato_• 13 years ago

Good comment, why is this greyed out?

AlisdairO• 13 years ago

Because it's based on a misreading of the article.

alan_cx3• 13 years ago

I misread it. I would like to edit it to reflect that, but I cant.

mjn2• 13 years ago

For those not familiar with him, Maass is an interesting journalist mainly focusing on international affairs. He's been following the surveillance story for a bit, and has an archive of some of his articles from the past ~10 years or so here: http://www.petermaass.com/articles/

He wrote a bunch of articles in the '90s as well, but doesn't seem to have them on his site. However his reporting on the Bosnian War was collected into a book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679763899/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

Most relevant here, he wrote an article in mid-June criticizing the focus on Snowden and Assange as personalities: http://www.petermaass.com/articles/we_steal_secrets_misses_t...

aridiculous• 13 years ago

"Definitely surprised. As one might imagine, normally spies allergically avoid contact with reporters or media, so I was a virgin source — everything was a surprise."

Ouch — poor choice of words. He indirectly classified himself as a spy. The media will be all over this. He needs to be more careful with his language.

ekianjo• 13 years ago

I'm wondering why this was not removed before publication. I mean, surely this was sent back to Snowden and his lawyer(s) before going to press. Maybe it was intended?

windexh8er• 13 years ago

Technically he was a spy - for the NSA. I would believe that is the context the statement is being made for his definition of.

ash• 13 years ago

He is also a spy in the sense he spied information from NSA for the public. In some sense he is people's spy.

eli• 13 years ago

Uh, wasn't he a spy? He worked for the CIA under diplomatic cover in Geneva...

ryusage• 13 years ago

You're right. I think he was referring to himself as being a spy before all of this, as in working for the US intelligence agencies. Probably? I'm not sure what else that could mean.

mtgx• 13 years ago

This is an interesting article, too, about Laura and how she helped Snowden:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-sno...

acqq3• 13 years ago

Not directly relevant: Anybody noticed the dog in the picture there?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/08/18/magazine/18po...

acqq3• 13 years ago

The older important article on Laura Poitras mentioned there (in the full version):

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...

One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.

TheAnimus• 13 years ago

I hope that the media keeps focusing on the issues detailed by the whistleblowing, rather than the story of said whistleblowing.

We shouldn't be distracted by a human interest story.

wfn• 13 years ago

I hope that the media keeps focusing on the issues detailed by the whistleblowing, rather than the story of said whistleblowing.

Of course, completely agree.

We shouldn't be distracted by a human interest story.

But there is a value in looking at people and using stories and those people's outlooks as our own role models for the future.

crusso• 13 years ago

As long as the Federal Govt is hounding the guy, protecting Snowden as a legitimate whistleblower should be within the media's role.

What is being done to Snowden should trigger as much outrage, coverage, and action as what is being done to the rest of us through the NSA's spying.

chiph2• 13 years ago

Through all of this, one of the things that impresses me about him is how well-spoken he is.

Obviously, the interview was done over encrypted email, so he had the opportunity to choose his words carefully, but even so.

During the interview his father did with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, he also impressed me with his speaking ability, even under a high-pressure situation like that.

corncobpipe• 13 years ago

We're taking Laura Poitras at her word that she did not edit the interview. There's no way for us to know if this is what Snowden actually said.

knowaveragejoe• 13 years ago

I don't think she would run the risk of ruining her credibility like that.

chiph2• 13 years ago

If you want to see what irresponsible journalism is like, read Benji Smith's book "Abandoned Ship", especially the part about "Jenna McJournalist". Laura hasn't (to our knowledge) behaved like that.

There's probably enough trust between them now that he isn't going to get upset if a hash of his email doesn't match a hash of her quote of him. She's also likely smart enough to realize that he could drop her at any time and the other news organizations would be lined to up for exclusive access. So she's going to act responsibly towards her source.

zeckalpha2• 13 years ago

I'd assume that in addition to encryption, Snowden signed the email, so no MITM attacks.

vehementi• 13 years ago

Snowden can say something if he's being misquoted. This is just FUD.

digitalengineer• 13 years ago

"I was surprised to realize that there were people in news organizations who didn’t recognize any unencrypted message sent over the Internet is being delivered to every intelligence service in the world. In the wake of this year’s disclosures, it should be clear that unencrypted journalist-source communication is unforgivably reckless. "

Not only the news people. My country's politicians as well. They didin't even change the standard code for voicemail, exposing all their messages to anyone with their number. For any whistleblower trust is the key. Even if you can trust the journalist/politician, you need to know if they know how to guard their communication. (Edit: typo's)

marquis• 13 years ago

I've seen Universities have been security for their professors than politician's laptops. It's truly bewildering - then there is the fact that the technology MPs are generally not well versed in technology at all - witness the myriad of awkward speeches given on tech topics in governments around the world. Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in office?

at-fates-hands• 13 years ago

>>Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in office?

These two things are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, most tech people distrust politicians and would never enter politics. Likewise, most politicians have no desire to learn about technology, or delve deep into things like cryptology and how to make technology secure from prying eyes.

FYI - the majority of representatives in the US Congress are attorneys:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/did-you-know-this-abou...

"168 Representatives and 57 Senators have a law degree. Of these, five (Representative and two Senators) also hold a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree."

Also keep in mind most of the people in congress are also from the baby boomer generation. They grew up long before the internet even happened. I've been told by a few friends most don't even use smartphones and barely use email. Maybe in another ten years this will start to change, but for now, don't expect too many computer science majors to enter politics.

mjn2• 13 years ago

Does any country actually have a genuine politician with a CS degree in office?

One U.S. Congressman, Pete Olson (R-TX-22), does have a CS degree, from Rice. He later studied law.

Engineers and physicists are slightly more common, though only slightly. And one Congressman, Jerry McNerney (D-CA-9), has a PhD in mathematics.

lifeisstillgood• 13 years ago

This thought hit me hardest yesterday (I even blogged about it !). We are wide open to commercial and political abuse from anyone with access to this level of surveillance. I brain dumped a few of the ways, but really, those who could help government really remain anonymous are actually helping NSA gather the stuff (i.e. GCHQ)

I suspect the most likely approach is a open collaboration and funding from say Brazil or Uruguay or Japan. Folks whose governments are being listened to but not getting the juice afterwards.

- http://blog.mikadosoftware.com/2013/08/12/nsa-prism-some-imp...

nwh• 13 years ago

My country's politicians as well.

Heck, they would get very good notice of any impending war too.

drunkenmasta• 13 years ago

There really isn't much to see here. After reading I thought I had missed something, perhaps one of those "page 1 of 30" things at the bottom. But to get the "full story" I'm told to buy some magazine or whatever. So much for releasing information in the public's interest. It's time to Jason Bourne this thing and make some MONEY off of it!

dale386• 13 years ago

Where are you told to make a purchase? That's the full story, as it will appear in Sunday's NYT Magazine.

panacea• 13 years ago

I'm prepared to stand up (coward level: coward) and point out Obama's address is titled http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/09/protecting-our-sec... "protecting our security and preserving our freedoms" which is "..."

A King-Kong level MEH.

acqq3• 13 years ago

Obama swore to protect the Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

and now distracts everybody that his goal is to "protect the security." In 2006 he called G.W. Bush on the same ground!

Even the "secret" FISA court, the only court in charge of NSA, decided (in the decision that is still classified as "secret") that what NSA does is unconstitutional.

The President still does the distraction of the public with "protect the security." Don't let this remain unnoticed.

wehadfun• 13 years ago

Like his comment about the presses job to check the government. I don't know if the press still values or even consider this their job. Do we need to have a charity news organization that focused on checking the government.

samstave2• 13 years ago

What a short article. It ended just as it was getting going.

Weird.

Q & A: Edward Snowden speaks to Peter Maass

Related Stories