ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Posts: 27156
Jul 30 15 10:47 PM
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that although the government is in many cases aware of the value of cryptography, they are opposing it. The UK government is an example they make frequent use of since the country is looking at banning cryptography that does not give the government a back door. Used properly, strong encryption can avoid data leaks from happening. If files are encrypted, then anytime they get out of their proper sphere, they are useless. Governments should be using more cryptography, not discouraging its use. The EFF has determined that governments opposing strong cryptography will ultimately have a negative impact on their economies and overall security. In the United Kingdom, a ban would have further effects. Open source software would have to become illegal. Otherwise, people might be able to compile their own encryption software. Closed source alternatives would still need backdoors from the government. David Cameron has said there should be nothing his government cannot read. The EFF also outlines efforts in both the Netherlands and Australia, which will have similar effects to the efforts in the UK and the US. Governments everywhere are considering how best to get the most control of encryption technology. Citizens everywhere have a chance now to get ahead of the government and acquire a means of encrypting and decrypting files. Weak encryption affects businesses as much as it does political dissidents and governments. Businesses require strong encryption to protect intellectual property as well as sensitive information. International efforts to ban cryptography don't seem to take these uses into account. Instead, governments seem focused on terrorism. David Cameron is not comfortable allowing anything into the hands of terrorists that makes it more difficult to track their activities. He promised
The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that although the government is in many cases aware of the value of cryptography, they are opposing it. The UK government is an example they make frequent use of since the country is looking at banning cryptography that does not give the government a back door.
Used properly, strong encryption can avoid data leaks from happening. If files are encrypted, then anytime they get out of their proper sphere, they are useless. Governments should be using more cryptography, not discouraging its use. The EFF has determined that governments opposing strong cryptography will ultimately have a negative impact on their economies and overall security.
In the United Kingdom, a ban would have further effects. Open source software would have to become illegal. Otherwise, people might be able to compile their own encryption software. Closed source alternatives would still need backdoors from the government. David Cameron has said there should be nothing his government cannot read.
The EFF also outlines efforts in both the Netherlands and Australia, which will have similar effects to the efforts in the UK and the US. Governments everywhere are considering how best to get the most control of encryption technology. Citizens everywhere have a chance now to get ahead of the government and acquire a means of encrypting and decrypting files.
Weak encryption affects businesses as much as it does political dissidents and governments. Businesses require strong encryption to protect intellectual property as well as sensitive information. International efforts to ban cryptography don't seem to take these uses into account. Instead, governments seem focused on terrorism. David Cameron is not comfortable allowing anything into the hands of terrorists that makes it more difficult to track their activities. He promised
Read more @ https://hacked.com/eff-war-cryptography-privacy-raging/
Renowned ‘whistleblower’ to present his views LIVE via satellite to Andrew Neil, on the state and future of national cyber security. Renowned former NSA employee Edward Snowden will deliver a keynote speech this year at Europe’s number one IT event, IP EXPO Europe 2015, taking place at London’s ExCel. Joining the event live via satellite on Wednesday 7th October, Snowden will share his views on the implications of national cyber security today. Famous for his ‘whistleblowing’ against NSA in 2013 which has since fuelled thousands of debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy and national security, Snowden will be interviewed live by renowned journalist and broadcaster, Andrew Neil, and will speak out on his views about the current state of cybersecurity worldwide. He is expected to discuss the truth about our privacy on the Web and the implications of recent major security breaches on the future of cyber and national security. Bradley Maule-ffinch, IP EXPO Europe’s Director of Strategy, says: “Our security is increasingly under threat and, following recent events like the Hacking Team breach, there are fresh concerns about how safe we really are on the Web. It’s a global issue, one which was bought to the forefront of the news agenda by Edward Snowden in 2013. For that reason, we are very excited to welcome him to this year’s IP EXPO Europe and hear his views on the matter”. Snowden is also expected to give his views on the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill, or ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, which calls for ISPs and mobile network operators to keep records of individual users’ browsing activity over a 12 month period. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a further extension to the bill which will strengthen powers for security services to intercept the content of communication.
Renowned ‘whistleblower’ to present his views LIVE via satellite to Andrew Neil, on the state and future of national cyber security.
Renowned former NSA employee Edward Snowden will deliver a keynote speech this year at Europe’s number one IT event, IP EXPO Europe 2015, taking place at London’s ExCel. Joining the event live via satellite on Wednesday 7th October, Snowden will share his views on the implications of national cyber security today.
Famous for his ‘whistleblowing’ against NSA in 2013 which has since fuelled thousands of debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy and national security, Snowden will be interviewed live by renowned journalist and broadcaster, Andrew Neil, and will speak out on his views about the current state of cybersecurity worldwide. He is expected to discuss the truth about our privacy on the Web and the implications of recent major security breaches on the future of cyber and national security.
Bradley Maule-ffinch, IP EXPO Europe’s Director of Strategy, says: “Our security is increasingly under threat and, following recent events like the Hacking Team breach, there are fresh concerns about how safe we really are on the Web. It’s a global issue, one which was bought to the forefront of the news agenda by Edward Snowden in 2013. For that reason, we are very excited to welcome him to this year’s IP EXPO Europe and hear his views on the matter”.
Snowden is also expected to give his views on the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill, or ‘Snoopers’ Charter’, which calls for ISPs and mobile network operators to keep records of individual users’ browsing activity over a 12 month period. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced a further extension to the bill which will strengthen powers for security services to intercept the content of communication.
Read more @ http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/edward-snowden-joins-line-up-at-ip-expo-europe-2015/
A secretive British police investigation focusing on journalists working with Edward Snowden’s leaked documents remains ongoing two years after it was quietly launched, The Intercept can reveal. London’s Metropolitan Police Service has admitted it is still carrying out the probe, which is being led by its counterterrorism department, after previously refusing to confirm or deny its existence on the grounds that doing so could be “detrimental to national security.” The disclosure was made by police in a letter sent to this reporter Tuesday, concluding a seven-month freedom of information battle that saw the London force repeatedly attempt to withhold basic details about the status of the case. It reversed its position this week only after an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office, the public body that enforces the U.K.’s freedom of information laws. Following Snowden’s disclosures from the National Security Agency in 2013, the Metropolitan Police and a lawyer for the British government separately stated that a criminal investigation had been opened into the leaks. One of the London force’s most senior officers acknowledged during a parliamentary hearing that the investigation was looking at whether reporters at The Guardian had committed criminal offenses for their role in revealing secret surveillance operations exposed in the Snowden documents.
A secretive British police investigation focusing on journalists working with Edward Snowden’s leaked documents remains ongoing two years after it was quietly launched, The Intercept can reveal.
London’s Metropolitan Police Service has admitted it is still carrying out the probe, which is being led by its counterterrorism department, after previously refusing to confirm or deny its existence on the grounds that doing so could be “detrimental to national security.”
The disclosure was made by police in a letter sent to this reporter Tuesday, concluding a seven-month freedom of information battle that saw the London force repeatedly attempt to withhold basic details about the status of the case. It reversed its position this week only after an intervention from the Information Commissioner’s Office, the public body that enforces the U.K.’s freedom of information laws.
Following Snowden’s disclosures from the National Security Agency in 2013, the Metropolitan Police and a lawyer for the British government separately stated that a criminal investigation had been opened into the leaks. One of the London force’s most senior officers acknowledged during a parliamentary hearing that the investigation was looking at whether reporters at The Guardian had committed criminal offenses for their role in revealing secret surveillance operations exposed in the Snowden documents.
Read more @ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/24/uk-met-police-snowden-investigation-journalists/
Edward Snowden's actions confronts us with a vexing problem. Because of Snowden's actions we are now burdened with the knowledge and evidence that we live in a surveillance state. We are confronted with our complacency. A fundamental question begs an answer. What does it now mean to be an American? Snowden's release of illegal NSA activities under the Obama administration confronts the left with with a moral conundrum. It was easy to have righteous indignation with torture, secret prisons, enhanced interrogation, Guantanamo Bay as the evil work of the dastardly Cheney Bush Rumsfeld Gang but the illegal NSA activities are on Obama's watch. Imagine for a moment, Snowden had released the NSA documents during the Cheney administration. There wouldn't be enough ink in the world to cover the left's outrage. Snowden's actions confronts the conservative fallacy of being a stout defenders of the Constitution. One must suspend logic, reason and commonsense to square the NSA activities with the framers original intent. Patriot Bill, FISA rulings, secret courts? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." is now only meekly mumbled. If Snowden hadn't informed us we could still happily pretend we're exceptional and the rightful heirs to the liberties and American values expressed by our forefathers. But now that we know and still we just sit compliantly.
Edward Snowden's actions confronts us with a vexing problem. Because of Snowden's actions we are now burdened with the knowledge and evidence that we live in a surveillance state. We are confronted with our complacency. A fundamental question begs an answer. What does it now mean to be an American?
Snowden's release of illegal NSA activities under the Obama administration confronts the left with with a moral conundrum. It was easy to have righteous indignation with torture, secret prisons, enhanced interrogation, Guantanamo Bay as the evil work of the dastardly Cheney Bush Rumsfeld Gang but the illegal NSA activities are on Obama's watch. Imagine for a moment, Snowden had released the NSA documents during the Cheney administration. There wouldn't be enough ink in the world to cover the left's outrage.
Snowden's actions confronts the conservative fallacy of being a stout defenders of the Constitution. One must suspend logic, reason and commonsense to square the NSA activities with the framers original intent. Patriot Bill, FISA rulings, secret courts?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." is now only meekly mumbled.
If Snowden hadn't informed us we could still happily pretend we're exceptional and the rightful heirs to the liberties and American values expressed by our forefathers. But now that we know and still we just sit compliantly.
Read more @ http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Some-Americans-hate-Ed-by-Bill-Perna-Edward-Snowden_Snowden-150725-623.html
OTTAWA — Canada's electronic spy agency is worried about a Canadian Edward Snowden. The Communications Security Establishment began educating new employees and existing staff about "insider threats" in 2013, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star. The crackdown on "unauthorized disclosures" was tied directly to the whistleblower Snowden, who pulled back the curtain on a pervasive electronic spying apparatus in the United States and its Five Eyes partners, including CSE in Canada. "Following the unauthorized disclosures of Canadian Navy Sub-Lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle (2012) and NSA contractor Edward Snowden (2013), CSE has intensified its efforts to tighten already stringent security," the documents, obtained under access to information law, state. "CSE's security responses to the unauthorized disclosures comprise both new and existing measures as part of ongoing efforts to better safeguard intelligence." Most of those "new and existing measures" have been censored from the heavily redacted document, a 2013-14 annual report to the minister of national defence. Almost everything Canadians know about CSE's modern operations comes from Snowden, who fled the United States with a vast amount of information on the U.S. National Security Agency and its counterparts in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Snowden gave that information to journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been writing about the NSA's operations since. In Canada, Greenwald partnered with the CBC to release select documents on CSE's operations, including:
OTTAWA — Canada's electronic spy agency is worried about a Canadian Edward Snowden.
The Communications Security Establishment began educating new employees and existing staff about "insider threats" in 2013, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star.
The crackdown on "unauthorized disclosures" was tied directly to the whistleblower Snowden, who pulled back the curtain on a pervasive electronic spying apparatus in the United States and its Five Eyes partners, including CSE in Canada.
"Following the unauthorized disclosures of Canadian Navy Sub-Lieutenant Jeffrey Delisle (2012) and NSA contractor Edward Snowden (2013), CSE has intensified its efforts to tighten already stringent security," the documents, obtained under access to information law, state.
"CSE's security responses to the unauthorized disclosures comprise both new and existing measures as part of ongoing efforts to better safeguard intelligence."
Most of those "new and existing measures" have been censored from the heavily redacted document, a 2013-14 annual report to the minister of national defence.
Almost everything Canadians know about CSE's modern operations comes from Snowden, who fled the United States with a vast amount of information on the U.S. National Security Agency and its counterparts in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
Snowden gave that information to journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been writing about the NSA's operations since. In Canada, Greenwald partnered with the CBC to release select documents on CSE's operations, including:
Read more @ http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5751745-a-canadian-snowden-cse-warns-of-insider-threats-/
And they too should be judged by a jury of their peers…… (the general public to whom they are supposed to be working for)
The White House rejected a call on Tuesday to pardon Edward Snowden, saying that the former intelligence contractor should "be judged by a jury of his peers" for leaking US government secrets. The US administration re-iterated its tough stance against the exiled former-NSA contractor, whom supporters regard as a whistleblower, in response to a petition on the White House website which has been signed by more than 167,000 people. Lisa Monaco, an advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, said that Snowden's "dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it." She said that Snowden, who had been granted asylum in Russia after he leaked documents on vast US surveillance programs to journalists, is "running away from the consequences of his actions." "If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions," she wrote. "He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime." The US administration has branded Snowden a hacker and a traitor who endangered lives by revealing the extent of the National Security Agency spying programs.
The White House rejected a call on Tuesday to pardon Edward Snowden, saying that the former intelligence contractor should "be judged by a jury of his peers" for leaking US government secrets.
The US administration re-iterated its tough stance against the exiled former-NSA contractor, whom supporters regard as a whistleblower, in response to a petition on the White House website which has been signed by more than 167,000 people.
Lisa Monaco, an advisor on homeland security and counterterrorism, said that Snowden's "dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it."
She said that Snowden, who had been granted asylum in Russia after he leaked documents on vast US surveillance programs to journalists, is "running away from the consequences of his actions."
"If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions," she wrote.
"He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers -- not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime."
The US administration has branded Snowden a hacker and a traitor who endangered lives by revealing the extent of the National Security Agency spying programs.
“It is hard to quantify this harm, such as it is, but I think the inflammatory nature of the way the Snowden affair played out really set back our collective discussion on cybersecurity,” said Rajesh De, former general counsel of the NSA in response to a question about Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified information. De now leads Mayer Brown’s privacy and security practice, and was interviewed at the Big Law Business Summit, earlier this month, by Sam Rascoff, faculty director of the NYU Center on Law and Security
Today university campuses lionize those who disclose our secrets The White House is denying that its decision to accede to the parole of Jonathan Pollard is animated by its hopes to assuage Israel in the face of the Iran appeasement, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week. My instinct is with the Journal, but, in any event, the thing to remember about Pollard is that he should never have been given a life sentence in the first place. It’s not that Pollard’s breach of our Espionage Act wasn’t serious. It certainly was. But the charge to which he pled guilty comprised a single count of passing classified secrets to a friendly nation. In exchange for his plea, which saved the government the risk of losing in court or being forced to drop its case rather than disclose the secrets, the government made promises it failed to keep. This came to a head in the early 1990s. Pollard was arrested in 1985. He pled guilty in 1986. He drew life in 1987. He sought to withdraw his plea in 1990. And the Appeals Court judges who ride circuit in the District of Columbia disposed of his claims in 1992. It was an incredibly distinguished panel, including Laurence Silberman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Fain Williams. Yet two of the three judges took what can only be described as a powder, casting Pollard into prison for what the law calls life (30 years) on the grounds that he didn’t appeal the life sentence in a timely manner. The memorable opinion in the case was the dissent of Judge Williams, who concluded that the government that put Pollard away had broken the promises it had made in return for his plea. The promises were that it would bring to the court’s attention the value of Pollard’s cooperation, refrain from seeking a life sentence, and limit its allocution — its statements — regarding “the facts and circumstances” of Pollard’s crimes. Williams concluded that the government “complied in spirit with none of its promises” and, in respect of the third promise, “it complied in neither letter nor spirit.” One of the points Williams marked was the government’s suggestion that Pollard had committed treason. That came in a memo to the court from the defense secretary at the time, Caspar Weinberger, who asked the Court to mete out a punishment reflecting the “magnitude of the treason committed.” Yet Weinberg and the Court knew that whatever Pollard did was not treason. That’s because the Constitution prohibits Congress from defining treason as anything other than levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason, Williams noted, carries the death penalty. It can be committed only with an enemy. The espionage statute to which Pollard pled encompassed aid to friendly nations and carried a maximum of life.
The White House is denying that its decision to accede to the parole of Jonathan Pollard is animated by its hopes to assuage Israel in the face of the Iran appeasement, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week. My instinct is with the Journal, but, in any event, the thing to remember about Pollard is that he should never have been given a life sentence in the first place.
It’s not that Pollard’s breach of our Espionage Act wasn’t serious. It certainly was. But the charge to which he pled guilty comprised a single count of passing classified secrets to a friendly nation. In exchange for his plea, which saved the government the risk of losing in court or being forced to drop its case rather than disclose the secrets, the government made promises it failed to keep.
This came to a head in the early 1990s. Pollard was arrested in 1985. He pled guilty in 1986. He drew life in 1987. He sought to withdraw his plea in 1990. And the Appeals Court judges who ride circuit in the District of Columbia disposed of his claims in 1992. It was an incredibly distinguished panel, including Laurence Silberman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Fain Williams.
Yet two of the three judges took what can only be described as a powder, casting Pollard into prison for what the law calls life (30 years) on the grounds that he didn’t appeal the life sentence in a timely manner. The memorable opinion in the case was the dissent of Judge Williams, who concluded that the government that put Pollard away had broken the promises it had made in return for his plea.
The promises were that it would bring to the court’s attention the value of Pollard’s cooperation, refrain from seeking a life sentence, and limit its allocution — its statements — regarding “the facts and circumstances” of Pollard’s crimes. Williams concluded that the government “complied in spirit with none of its promises” and, in respect of the third promise, “it complied in neither letter nor spirit.”
One of the points Williams marked was the government’s suggestion that Pollard had committed treason. That came in a memo to the court from the defense secretary at the time, Caspar Weinberger, who asked the Court to mete out a punishment reflecting the “magnitude of the treason committed.” Yet Weinberg and the Court knew that whatever Pollard did was not treason.
That’s because the Constitution prohibits Congress from defining treason as anything other than levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason, Williams noted, carries the death penalty. It can be committed only with an enemy. The espionage statute to which Pollard pled encompassed aid to friendly nations and carried a maximum of life.
Read more @ http://time.com/3973135/jonathan-pollard-parole/
That would be a “No.” In response to an online petition asking for a pardon for Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, the White House said on Tuesday that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States and face justice. “He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime,” the White House said in a statement. Mr. Snowden downloaded a vast trove of intelligence while working as a contractor for the N.S.A. and then leaked the documents to reporters. He is now living in Russia beyond the reach of prosecutors in the United States. Among other things, his disclosures revealed an N.S.A. program that collects the phone records of millions of Americans and that was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court in May. He has since become a celebrity among some civil libertarians and has been making video appearances at conferences around the world. The petition said Mr. Snowden was “a national hero and should be immediately issued a full, free and absolute pardon.”
That would be a “No.”
In response to an online petition asking for a pardon for Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, the White House said on Tuesday that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States and face justice.
“He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime,” the White House said in a statement.
Mr. Snowden downloaded a vast trove of intelligence while working as a contractor for the N.S.A. and then leaked the documents to reporters. He is now living in Russia beyond the reach of prosecutors in the United States. Among other things, his disclosures revealed an N.S.A. program that collects the phone records of millions of Americans and that was ruled illegal by a federal appeals court in May.
He has since become a celebrity among some civil libertarians and has been making video appearances at conferences around the world.
The petition said Mr. Snowden was “a national hero and should be immediately issued a full, free and absolute pardon.”
Read more @ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/28/u-s-rejects-petition-seeking-pardon-for-edward-j-snowden/
The administration is opening up its online petition platform so that people can add their name to a cause without visiting the White House website. The White House developed a tool that will allow programmers to integrate a petition into their own web sites or blogs. The administration is also sharing the code behind the petition platform with other governments or groups that want to launch their own version. It is also partnering with Change.org, so that signatures added to that popular petition website will count toward the White House count. Jason Goldman, the White House chief digital officer, also promised that the White House will attempt to answer any petition that reaches the 100,000 goal within 60 days. Twenty petitions had been waiting months for an answer, and the White House cleared the backlog with a string of responses Tuesday. Those included a petition calling for the pardon of Edward Snowden and another calling for reform to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which has massive support in Congress.
The administration is opening up its online petition platform so that people can add their name to a cause without visiting the White House website.
The White House developed a tool that will allow programmers to integrate a petition into their own web sites or blogs. The administration is also sharing the code behind the petition platform with other governments or groups that want to launch their own version.
It is also partnering with Change.org, so that signatures added to that popular petition website will count toward the White House count.
Jason Goldman, the White House chief digital officer, also promised that the White House will attempt to answer any petition that reaches the 100,000 goal within 60 days. Twenty petitions had been waiting months for an answer, and the White House cleared the backlog with a string of responses Tuesday.
Those included a petition calling for the pardon of Edward Snowden and another calling for reform to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which has massive support in Congress.
Read more @ http://thehill.com/policy/technology/249597-white-house-opens-up-online-petition-platform
Two years after 167,000 US citizens filed a petition to pardon Edward Snowden, the White House finally answered. The answer: Strong “no.” In a belated response, Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco accused Snowden of “running away from the consequences of his actions.” When a petition surpasses 100,000 signatures through the government’s official petitioning platform, the White House is supposed to respond. Even though the Snowden petition had more than 167,000 signatures, it looked like it was going to get ignored. Here’s the full White House response: Thanks for signing a petition about Edward Snowden. This is an issue that many Americans feel strongly about. Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security, we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Here’s what she had to say: “Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe. As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.” Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it. If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions. We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.” Why did it take so long? Maybe the White House was trying to figure out a less-hollow way to pitch platitudes about the specter of terrorism as excuses for immuring its surveillance apparatus from meaningful criticism, but it eventually gave up, because Monaco is still running these tired lines. It’s insulting to the people who signed this petition that Monaco is insisting that Snowden could’ve affected meaningful change on NSA policy from within.
Two years after 167,000 US citizens filed a petition to pardon Edward Snowden, the White House finally answered. The answer: Strong “no.” In a belated response, Homeland Security advisor Lisa Monaco accused Snowden of “running away from the consequences of his actions.”
When a petition surpasses 100,000 signatures through the government’s official petitioning platform, the White House is supposed to respond. Even though the Snowden petition had more than 167,000 signatures, it looked like it was going to get ignored.
Here’s the full White House response:
Thanks for signing a petition about Edward Snowden. This is an issue that many Americans feel strongly about. Because his actions have had serious consequences for our national security, we took this matter to Lisa Monaco, the President’s Advisor on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Here’s what she had to say:
“Since taking office, President Obama has worked with Congress to secure appropriate reforms that balance the protection of civil liberties with the ability of national security professionals to secure information vital to keep Americans safe.
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.”
Instead of constructively addressing these issues, Mr. Snowden’s dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country and the people who work day in and day out to protect it.
If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a jury of his peers — not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he’s running away from the consequences of his actions.
We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address. The balance between our security and the civil liberties that our ideals and our Constitution require deserves robust debate and those who are willing to engage in it here at home.”
Why did it take so long? Maybe the White House was trying to figure out a less-hollow way to pitch platitudes about the specter of terrorism as excuses for immuring its surveillance apparatus from meaningful criticism, but it eventually gave up, because Monaco is still running these tired lines. It’s insulting to the people who signed this petition that Monaco is insisting that Snowden could’ve affected meaningful change on NSA policy from within.
Read more @ http://gizmodo.com/white-house-responds-to-petition-to-pardon-snowden-with-1720831190
Read more @ http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/28/9058269/white-house-petition-response-edward-snowden-pardon
Read more @ http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/29/us-government-no-pardon-for-snowden-petition
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
Interact