Snowden @ TED Conference

[rhoenix]

Whistleblower Edward Snowden has appeared on stage at a TED conference in Canada via a remote-controlled robotic screen – and was hailed as a hero by the Web's founding father Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

"I grew up not just thinking about the internet but in the internet, and while I never thought I'd grow up to defend it in such a direct and practical manner, I think there's something poetic about one of the sons of the internet has become close to the internet as a result of political expression," Snowden told Sir Tim on stage.

"I believe a Magna Carta for the internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values not just in writing but in the structure of the internet."

Snowden was speaking from an undisclosed location in Russia via his robotic avatar, and was able to move around the stage checking out the audience via an attached camera during his presentation. The connection wasn't perfect, with Sir Tim jokingly suggesting the NSA was trying to block the transmission.

The ex-NSA technician then took questions on his actions so far and what was still left to be leaked from the cache of documents he swiped from the intelligence agency's network and handed to select journalists to publish.

"There are absolutely more revelations to come," Snowden said. "I don’t think there's any question that some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come."

Snowden said the US and UK's online mass-surveillance program dubbed PRISM had allowed the NSA to deputize corporate America to deliver innocent citizens' private data into the hands of spies, and not just the metadata. Some companies had fought against such a move, but all had eventually kowtowed.

The NSA had also put the entire American economy at risk by weakening cryptographic standards to allow them to be broken. The project, called BULLRUN by the NSA and EDGEHILL by the British spies at GCHQ (named after the first battle in both countries' respective civil wars) meant that anyone with sufficient resources could crack the encryption and destroy the value of intellectual property.

The US agency had lied to Congress over its capabilities, Snowden claimed, and had also broken its own internal rules with some of its eavesdropping activities. He denied setting out to harm America, his home country, and was dismissive of criticisms of his actions by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who described Snowden as a traitor.

"Dick Cheney is really something else," Snowden said with a grin. "The prerogatives of people like Dick Cheney do not keep the nation safe. The public interest is not always the same as the national interest. Going to war with people who are not our enemy in places that are not a threat, doesn't make us safe, and that applies in Iraq and on the internet."

Snowden said that there was no evidence that the mass surveillance schemes set up by the NSA had done anything to catch terrorists. Indeed, he said that in the intelligence community the threat of terrorism was called a "cover for action," something to trigger an emotional response that can be used to get powers that would otherwise be unavailable.

As for the personal attacks and threats made on Snowden's life, the fugitive said that they didn’t worry him. He was there to do a job for the American people irrespective of his personal condition.

"Who I am really doesn’t matter. Even if I'm the worst person in the world, you can hate me and move on," he said. "What really matters are the issues. What matters is the kind of government we want, the kind of internet we want, and the kind of relationship between people and society and that's what I'm hoping the debate will move towards."

No matter what you might think of Edward Snowden and the actions he chose to take, I do think he has a point in giving the Internet its equivalent of the Magna Carta.

[General Havoc]

The Magna Carta? The document that was repudiated six times and in fact burnt by the king that issued it? The one that abolished the right of appeal for the lower orders, codified Villeinage as a permanent state to be passed down through the generations, and established the Barons as authorities without check over the subjects in their domains? That Magna Carta is the one we need for the internet?

I'm simply sick of Edward Snowden's antics. It takes some balls to deliver a speech glorifying yourself in a symposium dedicated to your greatness, and then end it by telling his detractors to "move on" as he apparently has? He received Death Threats for doing what he did? I got death threats at the age of 17 for running a forum game. I don't recall conferences being called to celebrate my daring defiance of would-be censors. Death threats on the internet are the default state of play. There is nobody who has been active online for more than five years who has not received a death threat as far as I know, least of all someone who does something as high profile as he does.

If what really matters are the issues, then it's time that Edward Snowden shut the hell up and actually let someone competent to do so discuss the issues in question. Because until he decides to stop publicizing himself as the most awesome person to ever live, I don't feel any compunction to regard him as anything but what he presents himself as. And if he wants the discussion to focus on the "issues" something more substantive than "Dick Cheney (who has been out of power for six years) is a bad guy" might be useful.

[rhoenix]

The Magna Carta? The document that was repudiated six times and in fact burnt by the king that issued it? The one that abolished the right of appeal for the lower orders, codified Villeinage as a permanent state to be passed down through the generations, and established the Barons as authorities without check over the subjects in their domains? That Magna Carta is the one we need for the internet?

What I think he was speaking about was what the Magna Carta symbolized - that there should be rules as to who can do what with what's online, with consequences for those rules.

For better or worse, the Magna Carta stands out as a document that was meant to provide a measure of predictability and protection over lawlessness.

Right now, the Internet literally functions on measures of trusted connections - https certificates and SSL certificates are two big examples of this for trusted and secure communications via the Internet.

If those connections cannot be trusted to provide private and secure communications for business or private use due to having no laws or protection against things like hacking sysadmins just to get access to their networks, then that main basis of trust on the Internet is gone.

I'm simply sick of Edward Snowden's antics. It takes some balls to deliver a speech glorifying yourself in a symposium dedicated to your greatness, and then end it by telling his detractors to "move on" as he apparently has? He received Death Threats for doing what he did? I got death threats at the age of 17 for running a forum game. I don't recall conferences being called to celebrate my daring defiance of would-be censors. Death threats on the internet are the default state of play. There is nobody who has been active online for more than five years who has not received a death threat as far as I know, least of all someone who does something as high profile as he does.

That may be the case, but I doubt that the various US and international intelligence services were offended by you running forum games.

If what really matters are the issues, then it's time that Edward Snowden shut the hell up and actually let someone competent to do so discuss the issues in question. Because until he decides to stop publicizing himself as the most awesome person to ever live, I don't feel any compunction to regard him as anything but what he presents himself as. And if he wants the discussion to focus on the "issues" something more substantive than "Dick Cheney (who has been out of power for six years) is a bad guy" might be useful.

I'm simply not seeing the self-congratulations on his part that you are. I grant that because of what he did, there's going to be an inevitable cult of personality - however, he's not calling for armed insurrection as a result of it, or anything else. What he has done is state his support for something like a Magna Carta / Constitution / etc. for the Internet, as otherwise moneyed interests have far more power and influence over it than the ordinary citizenry.

[General Havoc]

That may be the case, but I doubt that the various US and international intelligence services were offended by you running forum games.

And I also doubt they stooped to posting death threats to internet forums. He's the one who brought up online death threats, not me.

I'm simply not seeing the self-congratulations on his part that you are. I grant that because of what he did, there's going to be an inevitable cult of personality - however, he's not calling for armed insurrection as a result of it, or anything else. What he has done is state his support for something like a Magna Carta / Constitution / etc. for the Internet, as otherwise moneyed interests have far more power and influence over it than the ordinary citizenry.

I never said anything about armed insurrection, I said that he's full of himself and relentlessly promotes his status as the Champion of Liberty to the exclusion of any actual purpose. I don't care if he lives in Russia forever or comes back to the US. I care that rather than discuss "the issues", all he did was state support for a sentiment as facile as "the internet should be free". A Constitution for the internet is a statement without meaning, as is a "Magna Carta" for the internet. It's plainly not the real Magna Carta, and if all he meant was the general symbolic meaning of "a guarantee of freedom", then why is this noteworthy at all? "The internet should be free" is not exactly a revolutionary or new idea. What is he calling for, beyond some generalized statement about internet liberty, the same statement that thousands of people make daily, some of them under considerable danger? What exactly does he have to contribute to this conversation besides a backhanded slap at someone who's been out of power for six months? What exactly is a Constitution for the Internet, beyond some wonderfully generic declaration that freedom is good? Why, in essence, are we listening to Edward Snowden when all he has to offer is statements without meaning and self-congratulation?

[rhoenix]

And I also doubt they stooped to posting death threats to internet forums. He's the one who brought up online death threats, not me.

Ok... so what is your point about bringing them up? What relevance to these death threats Snowden's received have to the issue of the Internet needing some sort of protective document of rights?

I never said anything about armed insurrection, I said that he's full of himself and relentlessly promotes his status as the Champion of Liberty to the exclusion of any actual purpose. I don't care if he lives in Russia forever or comes back to the US. I care that rather than discuss "the issues", all he did was state support for a sentiment as facile as "the internet should be free". A Constitution for the internet is a statement without meaning, as is a "Magna Carta" for the internet. It's plainly not the real Magna Carta, and if all he meant was the general symbolic meaning of "a guarantee of freedom", then why is this noteworthy at all? "The internet should be free" is not exactly a revolutionary or new idea. What is he calling for, beyond some generalized statement about internet liberty, the same statement that thousands of people make daily, some of them under considerable danger? What exactly does he have to contribute to this conversation besides a backhanded slap at someone who's been out of power for six months? What exactly is a Constitution for the Internet, beyond some wonderfully generic declaration that freedom is good? Why, in essence, are we listening to Edward Snowden when all he has to offer is statements without meaning and self-congratulation?

In this case, it's because he's released much information to the press about the NSA's data-gathering practices as evidence to support his public case for such a document, and has continued to do so.

As for the specifics in the document, I'm certainly no lawyer - but given that trust is very important to how the Internet functions, ensuring that this important trust between connections will not be broken without reason or consequences in my mind would be a good start - but even that's been more specific than what Snowden's named so far. In fact, he's been pretty careful to not give any specifics that I've seen, preferring instead to disseminate information.

You keep coming back to what Snowden said about Cheney - given that Cheney said that Snowden is a traitor in public, you have to expect that if Snowden makes any sort of appearance, he'd be asked about it - and he was.

"It's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney," Snowden said. "This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead."

"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him ... the better off we all are," he continued. "If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school."

Sure, he could have just gone with "no comment" or the like, but I don't see his response as particularly ire-worthy. What are you seeing of Snowden's words that I'm not? How do those words nullify the case he's attempting to make regarding the Internet needing a document of rights?

[Josh]

There is nobody who has been active online for more than five years who has not received a death threat as far as I know, least of all someone who does something as high profile as he does.

Actually I haven't received any for at least a decade now, so I think that's mostly you.

(Got a couple back in the day, including somebody who created an ICQ account just to tell me that they were 'My death'.)

[General Havoc]

I come back to his words on such things as death threats and Dick Cheney, Rhoenix, because those are the substantive statements of the article you posted. If you wish to have a conversation on another subject we can have that, but given that the article says nothing about protecting the internet besides platitudes about Magna Cartas, I decided to discuss the substantive matters that were in the article. There's not much else to say.

Sure, he could have just gone with "no comment" or the like, but I don't see his response as particularly ire-worthy. What are you seeing of Snowden's words that I'm not? How do those words nullify the case he's attempting to make regarding the Internet needing a document of rights?

He isn't making a case for the internet needing anything. He's stating an obvious platitude about how the Internet should be protected, without adding a single substantive matter to the conversation. He does not explain what he means by the Magna Carta of the internet, nor how he will deal with the consequent issues that will arise whatever he wishes to implement. He doesn't explain what he means in any regard. So what exactly is there for me to talk about his "proposal"?

If the TED talk gave more details that can actually be discussed, by all means post them. But I addressed the only issues in this article that I have anything to say about, because the mere fact that Edward Snowden thinks the internet is a good thing is not news.

[Steve]

From where I sit, the draw wasn't what he had to say but who he is, and it seems that his "appearance" was essentially the TED organizers giving the finger to the US Government and the NSA in particular. A petty act of defiance against organizations that won't give a damn about it, but which makes them feel better about themselves.

[rhoenix]

He isn't making a case for the internet needing anything. He's stating an obvious platitude about how the Internet should be protected, without adding a single substantive matter to the conversation. He does not explain what he means by the Magna Carta of the internet, nor how he will deal with the consequent issues that will arise whatever he wishes to implement. He doesn't explain what he means in any regard. So what exactly is there for me to talk about his "proposal"?

If the TED talk gave more details that can actually be discussed, by all means post them. But I addressed the only issues in this article that I have anything to say about, because the mere fact that Edward Snowden thinks the internet is a good thing is not news.

That's a fair retort - Snowden did not offer or suggest any specifics beyond stating that it should be a thing. Therefore, there's honestly not much to debate beyond the concept of there needing to be something there, which we agree on anyway.

[Lys]

There is nobody who has been active online for more than five years who has not received a death threat as far as I know, least of all someone who does something as high profile as he does.

I've been active online for over a decade, under both my real name and various aliases, and I've never received death threats at all. Josh might be right here, maybe it's just you. ^_~

[General Havoc]

Well, Lys, I can always rectify that...