News you may have missed #849 (analysis edition)

Edward SnowdenBy IAN ALLEN | |
►►Are American spies the next victims of the Internet age? The furor over the NSA’s data collection and surveillance programs has been fierce. But Daniel Prieto, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that the debate should be focusing on the US intelligence apparatus, transformed in the dozen years since 9/11, can meet the challenges and that the US faces today and into the future. He asks whether the “business model” of US intelligence –how intelligence is gathered, analyzed, and used– is sufficient and sustainable, or whether it needs to evolve to “something different or something more”.
►►What did Edward Snowden get wrong? Everything. Andrew Liepman, senior analyst at RAND Corporation, former career officer at the CIA, and former deputy director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, offers an insider’s view on the Edward Snowden case. He argues that those following the Snowden saga fail to understand that the US government “truly does make strenuous efforts not to violate privacy”. This is not simply because it respects privacy on principle, he says, but also because “it simply doesn’t have the time” to access irrelevant information that is not closely connected to possible espionage or terrorist plots against Americans.
►►Why US diplomatic missions became fortresses. Even during the Cold War, American diplomatic facilities were designed to be welcoming and to project the American values of openness and individual liberty. No more, argues John Campbell, former US Ambassador to Nigeria and Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Nowadays, US diplomatic facilities increasingly showcase “Fortress America”, he argues. And he concludes that, “the need to subordinate so much to security diminishes US soft power by undermining its traditional message of openness and welcome”.

5 Responses to News you may have missed #849 (analysis edition)

  1. Andrew Lippman uses “I” or “I’ve” no less than 18 times in his commentary piece and flunks the impartial ‘I’m not trying to sell you a bill of goods’ test.

    Lippman gets everything wrong by ignoring the rule of law aspect. The point is, when the NSA is in a position to abuse with impunity, experience shows the abuse will happen, this is why we have foundational laws (constitutional principles), precisely because history shows people in power cannot otherwise be trusted to show restraint. “Power corrupts”, and you all should know the rest of the story:

    Certainly Lippmann is correct in the thought there is no way everyone’s mail can be read, but this cannot conceal the fact ANYONE’s mail can be read and therein lies the potential for abuse. His argument is absolutely disingenuous, a knee-jerk apologetic for the undermining of the rule of law. I suppose this should come as no surprise with his background, undermining the rule of law is a longtime habit of the CIA abroad, now this agency minion would appear to defend a case of the chickens come home to roost.

  2. ^ Andrew Leipman, my apologies for the wrong spelling

  3. Kidd says:

    maybe there should be diplomatic mission kiosks in shopping malls. there was a respect for all missions back then,the game has changed now

  4. legion says:

    What Ronald says… regardless of whether the government doesn’t “doesn’t have the time” to access individual information, they don’t have any protections in place against individual agents or employees abusing their access to that information. And the apparently unconditional sharing with countless other government agencies (both foreign and domestic) makes the intelligence community’s safeguards entirely irrelevant anyway.

  5. TFH says:

    Re: Are American spies the next victims of the Internet age? The business model would seem to be fatally flawed when it comes to security because the highest principle in business is to maximize profit and minimize expenses. So if an agency run along the business model gets an offer of not collecting info on some one state and get compensated for it, like offer of NSA to GCHQ seems to be today, then the outcome according to capitalism is what it is. Who is to say NSA will not get a similar offer someday from e.g. an India-Saudi-China co-op?

We welcome informed comments and corrections. Comments attacking or deriding the author(s), instead of addressing the content of articles, will NOT be approved for publication.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: