One day after he took part in a carefully stage-managed forum with President Vladimir Putin on Russian state television, the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden defended his participation in an essay published by The Guardian.
Mr. Snowden wrote that he “was surprised†by the backlash since he had used the opportunity to raise the issue of “Russia’s involvement in mass surveillance on live television,†by asking the former intelligence agent in the Kremlin “a question that cannot credibly be answered in the negative by any leader who runs a modern, intrusive surveillance program: ‘Does [your country] intercept, analyze or store millions of individuals’ communications?’â€
According to Mr. Snowden, his question was consciously shaped to echo what Senator Ron Wyden had asked James Clapper, the United States director of national intelligence, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 12 of last year: “Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?â€
Video of that exchange posted on YouTube by Senator Wyden shows that Mr. Clapper initially answered just, “No sir.†After the apparently surprised senator then asked, “It does not?†the intelligence director, shaking his head, added: “Not wittingly. There are causes where they could, inadvertently â€" perhaps â€" uh, collect, but not, not wittingly.â€
“Clapper’s lie,†Mr. Snowden wrote, “to the Senate and to the public - was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.â€
After the actual extent of N.S.A. surveillance was revealed last June in a series of articles based on documents leaked to The Guardian and The Washington Post by Mr. Snowden, Mr. Clapper claimed that he had responded to Mr. Wyden’s question at the hearing “in what I thought was the most truthful or least untruthful manner.â€
By repeating the substance of the same question to Mr. Putin, the N.S.A. whistle-blower argued that he had taken advantage of a “rare opportunity to lift a taboo on discussion of state surveillance before an audience that primarily views state media†and “hoped that Putin’s answer - whatever it was - would provide opportunities for serious journalists and civil society to push the discussion further.â€
As Mr. Snowden noted, one Russian investigative journalist, Andrei Soldatov, “perhaps the single most prominent critic of Russia’s surveillance apparatus (and someone who has repeatedly criticized me in the past year),†described the question as “extremely important for Russia.â€
In his essay, which was passed on to The Guardian by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an organization co-founded by Daniel Ellsberg, Mr. Snowden also called Mr. Putin’s answer to his question, that Russia does not practice mass surveillance, “evasive†and suggested that it was unlikely to be true, given what Mr. Soldatov has uncovered about the capabilities of the Russian intelligence service’s System of Operative Search Measures, or Sorm, used to intercept telephone and Internet communications.
Indeed, Mr. Soldatov told The Daily Beast that Mr. Putin’s answer was, if not an outright lie, “a half truth.â€
“In terms of what is going on inside the country, he was not correct,†Mr. Soldatov said. “We have all signs of mass surveillance. My view is Russian surveillance is much more intrusive than what you have in the United States.â€
Even so, he added: “This is extremely important for Russia. I suspect Kremlin propaganda wanted to play Snowden, nevertheless this was a positive thing because it helps us to start the debate about the mass surveillance in Russia.â€
One observer who has been critical of the former intelligence contractor’s decision to seek asylum in Russia, the British writer Jeremy Duns, praised the former spy’s question and op-ed as “not just a courageous move by Snowden, but rather a clever one.â€
Follow Robert Mackey on Twitter @robertmackey.
No comments:
Post a Comment