.gif)
Watching the video was fascinating. While I already knew a great deal about all the programs that he spoke about, it was refreshing to hear it put out in laymen terms. Snowden was very informative and gave a solid talk.
He spoke about PRISM, how the NSA broke their own rules consistently, our role in the world economy and security, Project Bullrun (which undermines companies' security), and well, you can watch the TEDTalk to see it all. But the basic point that he has been making all along is that the NSA is violating our right to privacy and is creating an unsafe environment for the security of our citizens and companies with programs that are undermining the internet.
One point that really grabbed my interest was when Chris Anderson, the host of this TEDTalk, asked him why what the NSA is doing should matter to people if they are not doing anything wrong. Snowden responded by pointing out that people shouldn't have to worry about how their actions on the internet look to someone at the NSA now, or any time, no matter if they are doing anything wrong. He also pointed out that it has become obvious that the NSA will violate our privacy simply because they can. "We have a right to privacy," he stated with full conviction and went on to explain how that is not the current world we live in. But, as he points out, there is still hope, using himself as an example of how a single person can force the powers to be to discuss and be accountable for our right to privacy and public interest.
What was most interesting was when Snowden said, "there are absolutely more revelations to come. I don't think there is any question that some of the most important reporting is yet to come."
A few days later, the NSA surprised TED by agreeing to a response. Richard Ledgett is the NSA's deputy director and spoke on TED starting by discussing the steps Snowden could have taken instead of leaking it through Glenn Greenwald and other journalists. But, if you look at any whistleblower who attempted to work with the system, Chelsea Manning being a prime example, Snowden would either be ignored or imprisoned.
When asked to give a specific example of how Snowden put lives at risk with his leaks, Ledgett responded with a generic statement about nations, drug/human traffickers, etc. that are harder to capture, but failed to give a specific example. Surprised? You shouldn't be. The NSA has been claiming this idea since Snowden's leaks were first published, without any facts to back it up. Why? It's classified. Don't just take my word for it. Chris Anderson, the host of the TEDTalk, pointed out the question was not answered before moving on to the next question.
Ledgett called Snowden arrogant within the first ten minutes and attempted a character assassination. In my view, this lowered his credibility. I think the whole idea of vilifying Snowden hasn't worked, it actually has backfired on those attempting it, and really takes away from the serious issues of the leaks. As Snowden said in his interview, "who I am really doesn't matter at all. If I'm the worst person in the world, you can hate me and move on. What really matters here are the issues. What really matters here is the kind of government we want, the kind of internet we want, the kind of relationship between peoples and societies. And that's what I'm hoping the debate will move towards." But, Ledgett wanted to make sure we all know how self-serving Snowden is by ruining his personal life to spread awareness of our 4th Amendment violations.
Moving on to the issues, Ledgett claims that the NSA is concerned with the privacy of the American people, pointing out that he uses the same email service that is the number one provider used by terrorists. I believe his point was meant to be that terrorists are everywhere and they use the same internet that everyday people use. Therefore, they need to look everywhere for said terrorists. But don't quote me on that, his response was not quite as clear.
Anderson brought up the issue of metadata collection, speaking about the legitimate concern that people are more worried about the collection of metadata (basically tracking where you are/where your information goes) than the fear of the NSA reading content. President Obama has brushed off this idea by reassuring the people that the NSA is "not reading your emails," but many people are more worried about the government mapping out everything they do. Ledgett stated that, "if you're not connected to one of those valid intelligent targets, you're not of interest to us." Great, good to know. BUT! Just because a person is not of interest to you, here and now let's say, you're still collecting their information which could potentially be used against them in the future.
For me personally, it's easy to discover my discontent with this system and that I recently read Nineteen Eighty-Four. Will that ever become a credible reason to watch me? What about all the key terms I use in my blog and twitter? What if I retweet something that some random person posted on twitter, and it turns out they are a terrorist at some later date? What kind of freedom of speech is that? Should I fear future repercussion due to my discontent and web history. Will my home be raided because I write for Cannabis Now Magazine?
Overall, I felt that Ledgett was talking like a politician. Let's make it as boring and confusing as possible to avoid answering the direct questions at hand and make a person listening feel about the same, if not less, informed than before watching his talk.
Anderson pointed out that the programs have prevented zero acts of terrorism, but that any case that could be linked to the controversial programs were actually prevented by other means of intelligence. Ledgett countered by giving the example that a mosaic cannot be completed without the many different pieces.
While I clearly was not impressed with or persuaded by Ledgett's TEDTalk, I still think it is worth watching. Chris Anderson asked hard questions that I believe many people have been wanting answers to and while I personally believe Ledgett just hit the key terms; privacy, defense, terrorism, transparency, etc., I found it hard to trust what he said with the NSA's track record.
He ends by saying, "Learn the facts." Read that again. Because of Edward Snowden, we have those facts. If it were left to the NSA, we would have none. In comparison, Snowden said in closing that "we don't have to give up our privacy to have good government, we don't have to give up our liberty to have security. And I think by working together, we can have both open government and private lives."
Watching the TEDTalks side by side, it was very interesting to see how the two sides discuss the subject. From what I saw, Snowden wanted to focus on the issues and programs that are threatening our privacy and, in his view, the safety of the internet and those who use it. He spoke clearly, explaining everything with conviction. He wanted people to learn the dangers of an insecure internet, NSA backdoors, and the serious threats to our privacy. On the other hand, I saw Ledgett as giving general political ramblings. No conviction in his believes, other than how much he dislikes Snowden (probably because he made the NSA explain themselves), and nothing convincing. He played the blame game on Snowden and journalists.
What do you think? Is Snowden a national hero? A traitor?
No comments:
Post a Comment