Laura Poitras, the Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist who was the first to work on the top secret NSA mass surveillance story, has been fired by @TheIntercept in retaliation for speaking to the media about their mishandling of the Reality Winner case. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/medi…
I've said before that of all the journalists I worked with to break the mass surveillance story, none of them took operational security or source protection as seriously as Laura. I never once saw her cut a corner or break a rule. She was the only one who could make me feel lax.
Nobody outside the story understood how much pressure we were under. It is not an exaggeration to say that a single mistake could have sent everyone involved to prison—or worse. And during the most sensitive period of the reporting, Laura had the hardest part of it.
As an intensely private person, Laura Poitras has not sought the credit she deserves for her role in what is now quite literally written about in history books as the biggest story of the last decade. But her work changed the public mind around the world.
So when Laura says she was fired because she said things that executives found unpalatable, I believe her. That her concerns related to concerns of source protection—in the case of Reality Winner—makes it for me all the more tragic.
But no matter how @TheIntercept handled the Winner case, we should never forget that it is the state that is ultimately responsible for her imprisonment. It is an injustice for a whistleblower to spend one minute in prison, yet she has served years. She must be freed.
I hope that The Intercept will, in time, come to recognize that they have not handled Laura's concerns appropriately and apologize—if not to Laura, then at least to their source. #FreeRealityWinner
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Chinese edition of my new book, #PermanentRecord, has just been censored. This violates the publishing agreement, so I'm going to resist it the way I know best: it's time to blow the whistle. You can help. Here's how: (THREAD)
I asked to see a copy of censored passages, and was given a list of a few of the worst examples. I'm going to post them right here on Twitter, and we're going to translate them and expose exactly what the censors were trying to hide. Let's use Twitter for something good.
Let us compile a correct and unabridged version of #PermanentRecord to publish freely online in Chinese, by assembling a cadre of translators to expose every shameful redaction the censors demanded. We will work in service to the greater Republic of Letters and a better internet.
@AlecMuffett@jenvalentino@runasand@nytimes@gabrieldance@SteveBellovin Solid point. Much reporting on LE access demands (or "concerns") overlooks that the powers they have today are unprecedented and abnormal in a way our constitutional system does not anticipate. Status quo "should" be presumptively undesirable, yet editorial tone implies otherwise
@AlecMuffett@jenvalentino@runasand@nytimes@gabrieldance@SteveBellovin From a human rights perspective, a global reduction in mass surveillance capability is a desirable reversion to the mean. It is astonishing, and I would argue discrediting, for those claiming a public safety interest advocating for any new means of surveillance "at scale."
@jenvalentino@AlecMuffett@nytimes@gabrieldance While I do appreciate the reporting on this issue, not to mention your much longer history of work, which I have long followed with interest, but I have to agree with Alec that the editorial tone in this particular article is dangerously unskeptical. To cite a quick example:
@jenvalentino@AlecMuffett@nytimes@gabrieldance "It was unclear whether photos and videos of abuse were actually more prevalent on Facebook or were just being detected at a high rate." This is a rather breezy dismissal of what is the overwhelmingly clear explanation for the figures the pro-surveillance folks are citing here.
@jenvalentino@AlecMuffett@nytimes@gabrieldance The entirety of the trend that the surveillance folks are pushing here are quite clearly the product of increased sophistication in fingerprinting and flagging systems being adopted and operated by companies that are, at the same time, increasingly the center of the internet.
With Permanent Record suddenly considered among the year's best books, I again must thank the many who made it possible, from those mentioned in the text and acknowledgements to the countless hidden hands behind every timeless story.
I had set out merely to write a book, but when the manuscript was completed, it had become more—a work of literature. It took the better part of my year, drafting from night to noon, for that picture to come into focus. But at the outset, I was hardly an author.
The government of the United States has just announced a lawsuit over my memoir, which was just released today worldwide. This is the book the government does not want you to read: (link corrected) amazon.com/Permanent-Reco…
Statement by the American Civil Liberties Union on the government's lawsuit against myself and the publishers: aclu.org/press-releases…
It is hard to think of a greater stamp of authenticity than the US government filing a lawsuit claiming your book is so truthful that it was literally against the law to write.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live I wouldn't expect any system to be totally secure, much less remain secure forever in the face of adversary advances, but that's not the claim. Security is process of choosing between "less safe" and "more safe;" and continuing to fork toward safety until you reach "safe enough."
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live Against a TLA, Tor (when used with particular care for what is being transmitted, and how, so as to limit the impact of bad exits and traffic analysis) was and is, in my opinion, far better protection than typical alternatives like static VPN tunnels.
@toholdaquill@NSAGov@Tails_live "Far better" doesn't imply "secure against TLA," it just means "more safe." "More safe," in isolation, often means "not safe enough," which is why we layer in protection for defense in depth. Even way back in prehistoric 2013, Tor was simply the outermost layer.