Talk:2013 global surveillance disclosures

Revision of title

I believe the title should be revised to something more objective than "scandal" which was reflect's an individual's opinion. I'm against the government here personally - but this could be changed to something more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnedfaceless (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest we change it to? -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disclosures sounds better I think. - == — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnedfaceless (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Question of bias

As of now the very biased reactions of senior American officials are prominently displayed as "effects." The effects cannot be tabulated factually at this point - passing off the reactions of American officials involved in the scandals as fact seems very problematic. As it exists now I suggest that portions of the reactions to Edward Snowden that were not negative be moved into the "effects" section and the section be renamed "reactions."

Content ejected from Ed Snowden biography

I'm not sure I understand why it's necessary to have a huge chunk of content identical in most respects to what's in the biography. I copied over originally so that the biography could concentrate on biographical matters. But it seems that the sentiment there is that the person and the event are inextricably linked, and such a split is considered contrived and awkward. It's also likely that the bio will be moved to a namespace denoting "the event", even though there may be many discrete leaks. But there are already articles on each of the major leaks (PRISM, Tempora). I don't believe it's sound to argue that the content will not fork, because it's inevitable that will happen if the content remains. Because of the trend of evolution in what is currently the bio, it's more likely that this article will be deleted if there is the likely appearance of a POV fork. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

I generally agree with you that only one page needs to have any specific piece of info - my main qualm is that, while you removed 40,000 bytes from here, you only added around 10,000 in the Ed Snowden page (I've not had time to compare the changes - I don't doubt you edited out some unnecessary stuff, but 75%?)

My other thoughts are that most of the stuff you have removed from this article, like the reactions of various countries to the revelations (Hague, Merkel, Hollande), and so on, are relevant to the revelations themselves and to the debate on spying in general, and not to the person of Edward Snowden. In his article, we should by all means have the whole extradition debate, even the grounding of Evo Morales' plane, but we shouldn't leave this article as empty as you left it.

We can quite easily have two clearly-labelled, even bolded, cross-referenced redirects between the two pages, perhaps even in the leads. After that, I believe Wikipedia editors are clever enough to know which piece of info is more relevant to which of the two articles.

I don't believe it's right to have the entire international firestorm on cyberspying and human rights that is currently going on being entirely on the Ed Snowden page... That would be similar to moving the entire Pentagon Papers article to the Daniel Ellsberg page. BigSteve (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

2 points –

1. OhConfucius: OK, I understand the whole forking thing – however, you once again removed 40 KB, including an extra 3 KB added yesterday by A1Candidate. Now, I do trust that you're editing conscienstiously, however you did only add 10 KB to the Snowden page last week, and you did not replace the 3 KB from yesterday. Don't you think that you're cropping the information way too much? BigSteve (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2. As per my arguments above, I believe the entire Edward_Snowden#Reactions section should be moved to this article. Though I'm willing to leave this discussion for now, while we're still actively writing the two articles. BigSteve (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Insofar as I am aware, A1C's additions yesterday was isolated to the 'Effects' section. I did not touch that in the fork removal. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Well I just reinstated some stuff, thereby restoring the status quo ante as far as my content ejections are concerned. But as you guys are arguing that the revelations are larger than Snowden, I'd question why the final parts I reinstated are in fact necessary for the story – these are exclusively Snowden/Guardian snippets and are in the biography too. I'm not objecting to this as the chances of forking this are minimal. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a complex issue. Since the story is still currently developing, I'd say we carry on with the way you have done it - i.e. to keep adding most relevant stuff to the Ed Snowden article, just so that the story remains on one track, and, with hindsight (whenever that may be!), we see what needs to be split where. It still risks a fork, though, for people who do not notice the "Main article" link in the "aftermath" section. BigSteve (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Rename

On another note – this has become such a huge international scandal, I am surprised it does not have its own name yet. The Guardian files it all under The NSA Files, so I believe something short such as 2013 NSA Leaks would be short and clear enough to be universally recognizeable. (It's a blue link because I've currently got it as a redirect to here). BigSteve (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

NSA isn't the only intelligence agency having a major leak. GCHQ seems to be heavily involved too. And recent reports suggest that the French intelligence agency might also have secretly stored vasts amount of data "outside the law, and beyond any proper supervision". Perhaps a better name would be "2013 Intelligence agency leaks"? -A1candidate (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

GCHQ have been doing it for years, in close cooperation with the NSA. Friends in Cheltenham have been telling me about a number of Americans working there even 30+ years ago whose jobs you only alluded to with the wink of an eye. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Mass surveillance leaks, or 2013 Mass surveillance disclosures, or 2013 Mass surveillance scandal? BigSteve (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Mass surveillance scandal seems the most appropriate. Circumscribing it to only "an NSA/USA issue" is wrong, since that mass surveillance was is against almost all the citizens (and the firms) around the world (EU in particular) 79.20.37.179 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to 2013 Mass surveillance scandal as suggested above -A1candidate (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I find scandal to be Pov. 2013 puclic disclosures of mass surveillance activities would seem more neutral. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the original title of the article and I dont mind changing it back if there's clear consensus to do so. -A1candidate (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"2013 mass surveillance disclosures" seems most appropriate to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree that "2013 mass surveillance disclosures" is a suitable title. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Expand title and scope in light of WaPo stories

There are a couple of major Washington Post stories that need additional coverage somewhere on Wikipedia:

• Gellman, Barton (June 16, 2013). "U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata". Washington Post.
• Timberg, Craig and Nakashima, Ellen (July 10, 2013). "Agreements with private companies protect U.S. access to cables' data for surveillance". Washington Post.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

These greatly expand the scope of what's known about the U.S. federal government's mass surveillance activities, and they're not attributed to leaks by Edward Snowden. In light of this:

1. I retract my earlier opposition to the existence of this page, which I previously said was completely redundant with Edward Snowden.
2. More importantly: These programs need their own pages.
3. These programs, as well as Mail Isolation Control and Tracking, need to be added to this article.
4. The title of this article should be changed to "2013 mass surveillance disclosures." "Scandal" is a loaded and nebulous term, particularly when it relates to a collection of related activities. This page should serve as a central point for those activities, and comments made about those activities (such as PRISM) belong on those specific pages unless they don't fit neatly into a box like that. "Disclosures" is better than "leaks" because the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program wasn't leaked, it was disclosed by the FBI in a court filing.

I have less time on Wikipedia these days, so I'm sorry I won't be able to contribute much in this effort. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - By making it broader, it includes the whole picture. I support your reasoning. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support- I agree that the word "scandal" should be removed as being POV. It is not for Wikipedia to pronounce on whether or not something is scandalous. "Disclosures" is more accurate and more neutral. -- Alarics (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral – I want to add some info to the discussion though. Bear in mind that the title was already moved (last week) from 2013 Public disclosures of surveillance and espionage activities – discussion here. I think "scandal" was chosen since the whole issue is a continuation of old disclosures, including sections of Cablegate and the NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07), which had been brushed under the carpet but now have re-gained relevance. Though, again, I am neutral on the matter of a rename. Also note that all of the programs do have their own articles, which are all listed here {{NSA surveillance}} – this template is currently added to most of their own pages, including Mail Isolation Control and Tracking, and appending it is an ongoing process as new stuff is published. I have already spoken to an editor who would prefer to keep most of the new stuff within the Ed Snowden article, whereas I think most of it is more appropriate in the 2013 mass surveillance scandal article (discussion here). So maybe that can be discussed with him as well if he decides to join this discussion himself. (Though that's a secondary issue which can be discussed once the rest of the stuff is sorted.) By all means add the links you mention above if you think they are not covered, though! BigSteve (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think an Italian paper called this "datagate" but I dunno how common it is. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

New article?

Now, I don't want to make a million articles for topics that overlap too much, hence why I want to discuss this before creating one. But how about making a separate article for NSA mass surveillance programs, which would be different from the 2013 mass surveillance scandal in that it would exclude any Ed Snowden stuff or discussion of the media revelations/government reactions/international fallout, etc.

OR

To simply make a main section to this article named "NSA Spying programs" and discuss the NSA's methods themselves, before going on to the disclosures section.

I suggest this because nowhere is there a discussion of the general way in which the NSA spies with these newly leaked programs, but only on each separate program and on the fallout from the revelations. BigSteve (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

US President and State Department remarks

• http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/20130607obama-xi-remarks.html - http://archive.is/QZ748
• http://chinese.usembassy-china.org.cn//20130611obama-xi-after-meeting-remarks.html - http://archive.is/spsGt
• http://beijing.usembassy-china.org.cn/20130608donilon-press-briefing.html - http://archive.is/7ZrkA

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Details from Thomas Andrews Drake

Who says the Germans don't have a sense of humor? German offers nature walk at NSA base, gets house call from the feds!?

These should be sources for the related articles on PRISM, Fairview, Blarney and Upstream.

• "BLARNEY is to the international Internet space as PRISM is to the domestic."
• “Upstream means you get inside the system before it’s in the Internet. In its pure form,”
• Fairview: “It’s just a name, that at the highest level means to own the Internet.”
• Fairview involves tapping international fiber-optic cables, to access the data. And that it may involve an agreement with telecom companies such as Global Crossing. (reference the Brazilian spying scandal)

http://www.dailydot.com/news/fairview-prism-blarney-nsa-internet-spying-projects/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did the scandal really start in 2013? Or was it much earlier?

I have spent some time researching this subject, and have come to the view that what we describe here as the "2013 mass surveillance scandal" really began much earlier. Looking at the stories of Thomas Drake, Bill Binney, Russ Tice, Mark Klein, J Kirk Wiebe, and a few other less notables. What we see now is actually a culmination of a series of smaller scandals that preceded it.

Russ Tice describes how the NSA became a party to the wiretapping of lawyers and law-firms, Judges, Admirals, Generals, and senators and their spouses. Also, journalists and news organizations. He gives specific examples of Justice Samuel Alito, General Petraeus and then-senator Barack Obama. Note: The wiki article doesn't mention the names of others, but he did reveal them later, Post-Snowden He asserts firmly that domestic warrantless surveillance extends to the content of calls and emails, and not mere metadata. He also believes, though is not certain that it was done at the bidding of the White House, and in particular the Office of the Vice President.

Drake and Binney along with J Kirk Wiebe, and Diane Roark revealed the existence of Stellar Wind, the Trailblazer Project, and the defunct ThinThread. Their story dates back to 2000 and spans more than a decade. Binney and Drake and Wiebe have retained a lawyer, Jesselyn Radack who frequently is seen in interviews with them, and was a whistleblower in her own right, though the subject was not surveillance. Binney and Drake also assert that content, and not simply metadata is being collected.

Drake, Binney, and Tice, and Wiebe have each given several interviews post-Snowden.

Mark Klein was just a technician at AT&T, he had no security clearance. But he was responsible for the wiring to, but not in, Room 641A.

The question I would like to pose for discussion is this: Should this article be renamed, expanded, merged, or left alone?

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: What I have mentioned above isn't even all of it. I had omitted Pinwale, revealed in 2009 to James Risen, by a still-anonymous source. Risen has just been ordered to testify, or face jail. I have also omitted Mail covers, reported July third.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This demonstrates one of the reasons (of several) why the article should be renamed to not include the word "scandal." Scandals last for years, they come and go, and they blur into other scandals. Particularly when, as here, the allegedly scandalous activity continues for years and years. If we were to merge this article in with, say, NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)‎ then we'd have a huge, sprawling morass. I thought the point of this article was to talk about a much more discrete thing, which was the disclosures that have occurred since June 2013 and the associated fallout. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative may be to expand the "See Also" section. Linking to NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)‎, and perhaps a few others. I also like the idea of omitting the word "scandal." Alternate titles, each suggesting a different scope.

• 2013 Mass Surveillance: This would be a scope beyond NSA, and beyond Snowden. It would pick up the Le Monde story about the Prism of France and NYT story about Mail Covers. But would only focus on the present year, and I feel that the case will not end in January 2014.
• List of Disclosures by Edward Snowden would be narrower, but not be limited to the present year.

There are considerations for each. Merging to the 2001-07 article would require a lot of forethought and planning to be done right. To present the story in a coherent manner. As it is, it's not as clean as it might be. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Twitter

It is interesting to note that Twitter is providing its public tweets to the Library of Congress. And announced this in a press release.

References

More Testimony to come

Critics of NSA are invited to testify, in an upcoming hearing including Greenwald (via Skype).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/26/nsa-surveillance-critics-testify-congress

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re the speculation tag

"The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the search or seizure of a person's "papers or effects" without a court-ordered warrant based on probable cause that the person in question is planning or is guilty of an actual crime, and particularly describing what is to be seized. However, the US government has made strenuous efforts to prevent federal courts from ruling on whether the NSA's surveillance efforts comply with the Fourth Amendment.[speculation?]"

I think I can turn up articles outlining the various cases brought against the NSA, etc. The one that springs to mind immediately is Clapper_v._Amnesty_International. I'll get to it after I finish detailing the latest Snowden leak. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here we are, the EFF has a timeline that describes this issue in a clear and visual manner. One of the things that has stood out to me, in reading it is just how much more information Snowden's leaks have provided to the picture of domestic spying. I think can fix the problematic phraseology and source it. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not a neutral source and it doesn't support the "aggressively sought to dismiss and challenge" language. In fact the NSA doesn't "seek to dismiss or challenge" any lawsuit, as these cases are handled by the DOJ. Back to the drawing board... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How about the "government" or DOJ? Quite honestly, this HAS been the historical stance since 9/11. Every time an attempt is made to challenge in court, the response has been "state secret" or "you can't sue because you can't prove it, nor can you discover the evidence needed to prove it." I can simply pick a neutral source that will say the exact came thing. The EFF timeline, nearest I can tell, is based directly on the documentary evidence. In that vein, Here's one: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/politics/supreme-court-fisa (clapper v amnesty), and it's hardly alone. It's one of those cases of the truth itself being biased. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Jewel, the NSA is a defendant, and as such has been asking for dismissal. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Better to just say the federal government, since the DOJ represents the NSA. At the very least you should include a citation for each lawsuit. But I'm concerned about the use of the word "aggressively," which may not be supported by the sources. Every defendant in every lawsuit uses every defense they can think of to seek to have the suit dismissed. There's nothing particularly aggressive about that. Or noteworthy, for that matter. In my view the paragraph should be changed to say something simpler such as, these NSA programs have been the subject of a number of lawsuits, including X, Y, and Z. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit too sleep-deprived at the moment. Will ponder how best to tackle. I really am trying to be neutral. I really do back and read the source documents. In this case, it's not even a matter where it's POSSIBLE to cherry pick, most cases get dismissed at a much lower level, same reasons. The above are very nearly the only ones that have been fought all the way to the supreme court. There's not a body of cases where the gov't doesn't escalate to higher levels when they lose. As happens in other areas. It's one of the reasons I'm choosing the word "aggressively." --71.20.55.6 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't get to it today either.... --07:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.6 (talk)

DEA SOD program.

It seems that this ought to go somewhere, though it's not a Snowden leak.

• Relies on NSA intercepts and wiretaps, among other sources. Including a database of telephone records
• Tips from the SOD are then passed to agents.
• ""Parallel Construction"
  • Subpoena domestic telephone calls
  • Field Interviews/** defendant debriefs
  • Request foreign tolls or subscriber info via the Attache office/MLAT

The above is used to launder the initial source by "legally" recreating what they already had. The true source is then kept OUT of the discovery process and is concealed from the defendant. And even kept from prosecutors whose job is to try the case. Convictions hely on the "guilty" allowing the evidence to be concealed from the defendant. Charges are sometimes dropped in cased where the defendant demands a trial in order to conceal SOD involvement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-nsa-idUSBRE9740AI20130805

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)