How did we travel so far from the original vision of the internet as the one place humans could communicate and organize free of state and corporate control?
Recently Barack Obama talked about "truth decay." There would be less decay if people like Snowden were treated as patriots instead of criminals. We need an independent press that makes room for Greenwald, Taibbi, Hedges and so many more!
The early internet was inherently a techno-geek paradise. Techno-geeks built it, ran it, and used it. Almost nobody else did any of those things. But the commercial interests couldn't be kept out.
The second coming of (e.g.) America Online as an internet "destination" is symptomatic. It is representative of a hundred million boomers invading a space they don't understand, being horrified at the behaviour of the dirty hippies, and calling the national guard.
I'm less trusting than Snowden when he says that the internet tech giants didn't want the burden of censoring the internet. They didn't do anything to resist it and they are now, as he readily concedes, the primary engine of censorship. What they really wanted was the easy ride that tax free concessions and non-publisher legal protections afforded. They were willing to do almost anything to gain those benefits and plainly they are willing to do almost anything to keep them. Including the most eye-watering Clapper-like lies to Congress.
I won't even start on how many of them are only in business because they were directly financed by the spooks from the beginning or were plucked out of obscurity and talked up globally by intelligence assets in the media.
The trenchant point is that it is the very attributes that made the internet attractive to thinking people - the freedom, the anonymity, the incredibly low cost - that most threatened the established gatekeepers who are now hellbent on destroying those very attributes. The irony (my favorite dish) is that Twitter and facebook and YouTube are de-platforming some of their most profitable content providers. There's a saying that proposes that any organisation that is fully converged on the pursuit of social justice objectives can no longer perform its original functions. The internet tech giants are actively trying to kill the goose that laid their golden eggs, to limit their own reach, to not merely alienate but ban large portions of their target addressable markets. They are emulating the print media's suicidal affair with the deep state and the consequences can only be the same.
Actually, lots of peeps are already mourning. What else could possibly explain that the US only had POTUS choices among several, not merely the very most vulgar 'top 2' candidates? The nation cries out for decency; and nary a one of the hyper-self-demolished characters among them suspects their own hyper-misguided self-designed "individuation" has anything to do with that swampiness dominating US imperial collapse. Crying also comes in many guises: "road rage" & "divorce" & "drug cults" (official & other), homelessness, etc.
I call that article at IndyUK wonderful ancient wisdom. It charms the mind how many peeps cannot imagine this 7.5 decades into US religiously cultivated totalitarianism how much more powerful over their own minds is the CIA than Goebbels ever was in 1930s-1940s Germany, or anybody else anywhere, even more so than was Stalin in USSR! At least in the USSR, there were many poets writing popular seriously rich, delightfully & wickedly corrosive poetry against Stalin. We do not even tolerate one commedian/commediene who spoofs our spooks or even their own chiefs funneling our money to those spooks! Indeed, we routinely celebrate AVARICE as the Christian God of Love on every possible occasion and w/nary a consideration of the ironies we thereby harbor in our own souls!
I agree with a lot of points Snowden brings up here.
However, I would believe his cause with the Freedom of the Press Foundation even more, if they wouldn't accept donations from lobbyist organisations like the Open Society Foundation.
Their close relationships to governments is exactly what he was explaining in the interview. However that can change and hopefully is improved in the near future.
Well first off, the foundation has supported major news outlets. Sort of the point Snowden pointed out in the interview. They come in and control the narrative of the news we see each day. George Soros, the founder of the foundation, has deep connections with governments over here in Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Serbia, Hungary, Czech Republic, United Kingdom) and used to be one of the main lobbyist connection with the Obama offices. I recommend checking out their portfolio on their website. They excel at dividing societies and then conquer the incoming or weakened governments. I'm not saying the Freedom of the Press Foundation is one of those assets, but still it makes you wonder what the reasons for their support is, if FOTP wants to support journalists and don't cancel or destroy them... Hope that clears it up.
Taking money is one thing. Allowing them to control the narrative is quite another. If Snowden stands by his principles I don't think this will be a concern.
No, not with him as a person. Just the fact that this scenario I described above, turned into a reality as soon as the foundation was involved... The foundation is focused around him. Therefore I bring it up.
Lobbying is a constitutional right, the First amendment, and so it is as important as free speech, which is also covered in the First Amendment. We have the right to petition the government as do organizations, such as the Open Society Foundation. When you write your senator or representative, you are lobbying!
The problem is not lobbying, it is allowing money to flow to candidates, allowing officials and their family and friends to be hired by companies that they provided votes for, allowing officials to be paid for speeches, etc. While we can end campaign donations, Citiaens United v FEC does not protect campaign contributions, the other paybacks are a bit more difficult to control, but some sorts of safe guards can be implemented.
In the beginning of the video Snowden talks about private email services. He belonged to one, called Lavabit. Not only was encryption encouraged, but Lavabit would not give out any information about their users. They would not even confirm or deny that a user existed on their service. After Snowden was identified, Lavabit was hit with a federal court order demanding certain information and possibly the need for the federal government to install its own snooper software on the site. On August 9, 2013, the owner of Lavabit announced the service was shutting down after 10 years. They had challenged the government’s right and lost in a secret court hearing. Almost immediately other private encrypted mail services also shutdown.
McCullagh also speculated that Lavabit had been served with a court order to intercept passwords and encryption keys in a Google+ post that is no longer available. And, as far as I know, private email services still face the same pressures that Lavabit faced in 2013.
Ladar Levinson offered a prescient warning this is still good advice today:
“This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.”
"Didn't we all learn this point early on in school: there are criminals in the world, and allowing the police to break down our doors without warrants would help criminals be caught. Despite that fact, we don't allow the police to break down our doors without warrants, because the police can catch criminals by searching homes only when they have warrants, a process enshrined in the Constitution in order to avoid the inevitable abuse that comes from allowing the Government to search our homes without any oversight. Thus, people (such as the Founders) who favor the warrant requirement before the police can search our homes aren't pro-criminal. They know that criminals can be caught while preventing government abuse and lawlessness. Why is it so hard -- for some people -- to apply that same, quite basic reasoning to eavesdropping and all other forms of surveillance?"
Glenn Greenwald, in 2006, How it started...and how it's going.
Hi Mona. Fellow Michigander here who also voted yes for proposal 2. Was surprised it made the ballot but happy to see the support it received. Tells me will never see the "Patriot" Act on citizens' ballots.
I first got on the internet in the late 1970s, LONG before most people even knew it existed.
There was no "web" then, it was mostly bulletin boards of various types, "list-serves" which evolved into something called "usenet" (which is topic-based), a very early and by modern standards primitive email system, and other text-only features.
My favorite "site" was called "The Source". It was a big computer and we who connected in effect were time-share users, though The Source didn't call us or their system that. Perhaps their most impressive feature was / were various live feeds from news outlets around the world including the Associated Press. ... You could set up "filters" based on keywords you'd give and then it would put articles that contained the patterns you gave it into your email in-box.
I got to the internet via a modem, at first acoustic-coupled where you'd literally plug your telephone hand-set into the device, and later I had a "d-cat" - direct-coupling (that is, via an RJ-11 plug just like the then-new "modular jack" telephone connectors).
Before the '70s were out, I got a job as a computer programmer and wrote an operating system for the TANO Outpost - this is LONG before Windows and Microsoft had just been founded - they were pedaling this primitive operating system called DOS, which was antiquated the day it was released, truly technically inferior (Gates surely didn't make his money due to technical superiority of his products!)... ... I wrote the networking software for the Outpost so it could talk with other computers, though it was all for private networking, usually via dedicated phone lines known as a T-1.
I later, in the early '80s, joined Digital Equipment Corp (variously "DEC" or "Digital"). DEC had the world's largest known network of computers in the world - connecting its own people! That network was done via something called Decnet and Digital sold that ability to others - the DEC-internal network was by the mid 1980s some tens of thousands of nodes. And Digital was busy working on improving the networking and at one point I worked on their most important networking team and helped develop DHCP - Distributed Host Control Protocol - which is still used today.
If I recall correctly, Decnet's original protocol, the first version of which was known as CSMACD - Carrier Sense, Multi-Access, Collision Detect - transmitted fairly large data packets to multiple computers simultaneously using a large diameter coaxial cable. They then added several other networking techniques because CSMACD was intended for local area networks and it would be nice to have remote connectivity, of course. And, eventually they went with small diameter coaxial cable as used on cable-TV at the time (and still).
As all that was happening, I also helped a little with this new fangled thing - new to us anyway - called Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP. TCP, later TCP/IP (the IP for Internet Protocol) would break up messages into smaller sizes. This lowered total throughput on a good line but on a bad line it worked better since a re-send of a big data packet is more expensive than sending a little one. BUT, TCP is point-to-point.
...The internet is really all based on computer networking, so these technologies were maturing in the mid 1980s. By the early '90s, I had moved on to database systems and joined a company working as a high-dollar consultant. Because of that role, and because of my technical background, I got to visit a substantial fraction the larger computing sites in the world - everyone from Boeing, hundreds of universities, large government facilities, you name it. And one of my key interests was the networking, so I'd ask how people were doing what they were doing....
At that time, the internet primarily consisted of one or more computers at a given site dedicated to the network. If you wanted to be on the internet, you'd have to volunteer to host a node and the dedicated networking lines to get the data in and out. And, of course, you'd also have to volunteer the technical talent to run the system(s). Everybody cooperated, donated time and resources, for the good of all.
So, as a user, you'd have to have some way to get to the network, such as in my own case, I had a computer on my desk connected to the company's internal network. If I wanted to send an email to someone in another company, I had to use our "email gateway," and how to do that depended on what kind of computer you had on your desk. Some of us had Unix boxes - you can think of Unix as an older version of Linux - and I was lucky having both Unix and VAX/VMS access, so I had multiple ways of getting to the internet other people didn't have, which occasionally was useful in overcoming some kind of technical problem. ...If I wanted to get online from home, I'd use "telnet" and these modem phone-banks for dial-up service and from there I could get into my computers at work and from there to the internet.
During that period, there was no web yet, no web browsers, etc, and it was mostly still as it was back on The Source except that now sound, images, video and other content had been standardized reasonably well. And, it became possible to log-in to other computers remotely and access their content "directly" as if you were logged in to a computer on your own desk (thanks to X-Windows). Not all that many people did this, but I liked it and still use the technique.
There were definitly security problems with this type of world, but there were few crackers, and most networking staff were pretty sharp and did a good job keeping things reasonable secure while also allowing many kinds of access. One common technique was to put content to be shared on a particular machine and then lock down access from that machine to the rest of an internal network. Rules like this made things pretty clumsy and nearly impossible for most corporate network users, but as I was a senior guy, I usually had system administrator privileges and could work around these issues.
Then, in about 1995, this all changed when the first web browsers, like Netscape, were launched and encryption started to truly come of age as well. At that point, the modern internet had been born, and in less than a year I was running my own web site. . . . THIS, I presume, is the Era that Snowden was thinking of - the second half of the 1990s...
>>> "THIS, I presume, is the Era that Snowden was thinking of - the second half of the 1990s..."
It's certainly the earliest era with which he would have had personal experience. He's much too young to have been around when we were excited to get actual 300 baud throughput.
You're right about excitement at 300 baud! Woo Hoo! It was so fast, it could ALMOST keep up with a competent typist! ... OK, well, I exaggerate a little!
The second half of the '90s was indeed a grand time to be on the net, if you knew what you were doing! But, we still had our frustrations. For example, I had to write my own C program to get access to "stat" data on a file which SHOULD have been a bash built-in, or at least already written, like ls. As another example, I had to write a LOT of helper tools to overcome the shortcomings of early Java.... And, I wrote my own version of wget, etc, all because you had to.
In modern times, most of my helper programs written up to, say, 2005, have been written as parts of official operating system or package distributions by others doing a better job than I did originally and I've happily adopted them, but I haven't deleted the old code - leaving it as a reminder of those days gone by.
After the Bell 101 at 110, 300 was blazing. And the bits just kept on coming. I remember, in the mid(?)-90s, listening to new 2400 modems we had connected to improve communication with systems on dial-up in the remote hinterlands (MicroVAX 3100s) go though their handshake protocol. "Just listen to how fast that is!"
Always save your code! You never know, and it's nice to reminisce.
Didn't the builtin "file" command, which uses the stat system call give you what you needed? Or were you working on a non-nix system then? Regardless, you were writing C code, which qualifies you as a certifiable geek, which is even better than being certified. ;^)
I find it humorous you call it "prehistory"! ... Yeah, I guess I'm a prehistoric!
I started so young, I'm not yet of expected-to-be-retired just yet, though most of those I have worked with long since have....
Though I worked for DEC through that period, I didn't really work with the MicroVaxes much. BUT I do recall the advent of the 2400 baud modems!
I appreciate your comment about "always save your code". MOSTLY I have done so, but I've lost some I wish I hadn't. Such are the vagaries of backup systems, unfortunately.
As for your assertion of the builtin file command, I have been unfamiliar with it until your comment. Apparently it's a BSD thing, and, as I haven't been a user of BSD since the early '90s, it's something I've just not known about.
I've just checked it out and I obviously have a lot to learn about it as it seems like a very useful utility, it doesn't actually address the need of the stat utility I spoke of earlier. That is, they're both useful but not for identical purposes.
I'm very welcome for your further comments; when you're through learning, your trough!
Not sure which branch the file command came from. In my mind, it's been there forever, but Unix was already more than a decade old when I first met it. I'm sure the command was in System V Release 4 ("SVR4") in the late 80s, but that was the result of AT&T forcing a merger of all the system branches, so it certainly could have come from the Berkeley branch.
The 'nix universe is so huge that none of us are ever going to get close to knowing more than "enough," but enough is a lot and it's a fun universe to play in.
At least on my youngest Fedora box, if you run $ man file, the top line indicates file came from BSD. stat, it turns out, came from gnu.
Regarding, "The 'nix universe is so huge that none of us are ever going to get close to knowing more than "enough," but enough is a lot and it's a fun universe to play in," I agree
The expansion of the computing universe mirrors the whole universe in a real way; the invention of the microchip was the equivalent of the big bang. ... When I first started, I dare say it was possible for someone to know a little bit about nearly all of it. But there's no way now for anyone to even to know what it is they don't know about, and that's been true for a very long time and it's growing exponentially.
That said, I'd guess my generation is the last to even have a clue "how it all works" from a theoretical perspective since I hear from younger ones coming along, people are "siloed" into "tracks" of specialization so it's nearly impossible for someone to get a full education - those in a position to be the most informed are chip designers because they must understand the software, too. In sharp contrast to today's education, I learned the hardware and the software, made my own motherboards and daughter cards and so forth, and even did the logic design for a chip (which, unfortunately, I couldn't afford to bring to market - it would have given us quad-CPU "home computers" at about the same time the Macintosh was still on the drawing board).
One of the more interesting things in this universe I've observed is the changing goal posts of "artificial intelligence" - the expression doesn't mean today anything like what it meant in the late 1970s, which isn't anything like what it meant in the late '80s, etc... Not long ago I heard on the radio a commercial for a firm advertising that they were bringing artificial intelligence to the business community to "solve previously unsolvable business problems." So, I called 'em up. And yep, just like I thought, sorry guys, it's just plain ole data processing, just with much faster hardware, though, along with a wonkey concept for how to express those business problems. But SSSSSHHHHH! Don't tell anyone, the stock price might drop!
What I am wondering about, though, is if quantum computing will ever be a real "thing." I think they're up to about ten q-bits today - FAR from enough to do anything really useful. At this rate, I'll have been dead over a hundred years before a quantum computer is useful!
Snowden pointed out the obvious problem that people expect advertising companies like Google and Facebook to protect free speech. Clearly, this expectation is wrong.
You're a breath of fresh air, Glenn. As a Millennial I'm not accustomed to paying for news content, because 90% of it is free, but your interview with Rogan, and your criticism of the militarism and corporatism on both sides of the aisle, convinced me of your sincere journalistic integrity (a characteristic in short supply today) and the need to support such integrity financially (in the hope it will grow). Finally, your exposure of the Hunter Biden scandal suppression, and criticism of all forms of social media and government censorship, makes it clear you are not a paid propagandist of the establishment (like many of your counterparts in the MSM) and you are willing to call bull$#!% on all censorship, even if it's not popular to do so. Keep up the good work
I love the way Mr. Snowdon closed the interview with, "Stay free." I've been saying that for a while now as a reply to those who use the banal "new normal" post-conversational salutation, "Stay safe!" I usually preface my reply with something like, "Safety is an illusion," just to clarify my point.
Sadly, in our (anything but) Brave New World, I suppose that has also become true of freedom.
So you disapprove of copyright laws? Good for GG he holds some copywright power over distribution of that video! Would that more reporters were sufficiently self-respecting to do the same or refuse to publish at the corporate misleading cults like NYT, WaPo, NBC, et. al. Keep in mind that CIA bribing techies was nothing new for the cia or for invetors who pushed the whole stupid poop fest that continues this day brainwashing all the peeps who remain addicted to TV brain-washing swamp. Letting Bill Gates & Elon Musk, et. al., have copyright protections for their pet crap factories and not making that law general is part of what the problem is for more than the media & reporters who help us see the class-hierachies dominating US imperial collapse. On the other hand, perhaps we should create a holiday celebrating US imperial collapse?
Snowden signs off, "Stay free." You've done rather well on that score, Mr. Greenwald. Congratulations. I subscribed today simply because I value integrity in journalism. You've got it. It’s a rare quality in any profession in America today. I wish I could afford to give more.
How will Glenn’s operation grow ? Will he have staff and research capability moving forward ? I suspect everyone who joined his substack for $50 is on some watchlist kept by someone for some reason. All this Stasi like tracking and spying is so much wasted human energy.
Not very bright future ahead on freedom of speech and freedom of journalistic activities. Hope judgement on Julian Assange is a refusal of extradition, for himself of course in the first place, and also to may be open a window to go start reverse the course. Unfortunately we cannot think that we could have virtous governments in the western said democracies, which we should speak about really, as it is the point where it all starts.
Thanks for posting. I feel honored to be getting such information first hand early on in the news cycle. It has become impossible to ferret out the truth by reading both sides with all of their agitprop, feints and double dealing. Will Biden et al break up “big tech” or cut their own deal to continue keeping out Conservatives ?
How long before we are at “War” with the Neo Liberals returning to their seats of power and influence ?
Recently Barack Obama talked about "truth decay." There would be less decay if people like Snowden were treated as patriots instead of criminals. We need an independent press that makes room for Greenwald, Taibbi, Hedges and so many more!
Barack Obama is to truth decay what refined sugar is to tooth decay.
Can I just say how much I admire the intelligence, clarity, integrity and humility of Edward Snowden? Thanks for having him, Glenn. Stay free.
Me too. Thank you so much.
The early internet was inherently a techno-geek paradise. Techno-geeks built it, ran it, and used it. Almost nobody else did any of those things. But the commercial interests couldn't be kept out.
The second coming of (e.g.) America Online as an internet "destination" is symptomatic. It is representative of a hundred million boomers invading a space they don't understand, being horrified at the behaviour of the dirty hippies, and calling the national guard.
I'm less trusting than Snowden when he says that the internet tech giants didn't want the burden of censoring the internet. They didn't do anything to resist it and they are now, as he readily concedes, the primary engine of censorship. What they really wanted was the easy ride that tax free concessions and non-publisher legal protections afforded. They were willing to do almost anything to gain those benefits and plainly they are willing to do almost anything to keep them. Including the most eye-watering Clapper-like lies to Congress.
I won't even start on how many of them are only in business because they were directly financed by the spooks from the beginning or were plucked out of obscurity and talked up globally by intelligence assets in the media.
The trenchant point is that it is the very attributes that made the internet attractive to thinking people - the freedom, the anonymity, the incredibly low cost - that most threatened the established gatekeepers who are now hellbent on destroying those very attributes. The irony (my favorite dish) is that Twitter and facebook and YouTube are de-platforming some of their most profitable content providers. There's a saying that proposes that any organisation that is fully converged on the pursuit of social justice objectives can no longer perform its original functions. The internet tech giants are actively trying to kill the goose that laid their golden eggs, to limit their own reach, to not merely alienate but ban large portions of their target addressable markets. They are emulating the print media's suicidal affair with the deep state and the consequences can only be the same.
Few will mourn.
Actually, lots of peeps are already mourning. What else could possibly explain that the US only had POTUS choices among several, not merely the very most vulgar 'top 2' candidates? The nation cries out for decency; and nary a one of the hyper-self-demolished characters among them suspects their own hyper-misguided self-designed "individuation" has anything to do with that swampiness dominating US imperial collapse. Crying also comes in many guises: "road rage" & "divorce" & "drug cults" (official & other), homelessness, etc.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
I call that article at IndyUK wonderful ancient wisdom. It charms the mind how many peeps cannot imagine this 7.5 decades into US religiously cultivated totalitarianism how much more powerful over their own minds is the CIA than Goebbels ever was in 1930s-1940s Germany, or anybody else anywhere, even more so than was Stalin in USSR! At least in the USSR, there were many poets writing popular seriously rich, delightfully & wickedly corrosive poetry against Stalin. We do not even tolerate one commedian/commediene who spoofs our spooks or even their own chiefs funneling our money to those spooks! Indeed, we routinely celebrate AVARICE as the Christian God of Love on every possible occasion and w/nary a consideration of the ironies we thereby harbor in our own souls!
I agree with a lot of points Snowden brings up here.
However, I would believe his cause with the Freedom of the Press Foundation even more, if they wouldn't accept donations from lobbyist organisations like the Open Society Foundation.
Their close relationships to governments is exactly what he was explaining in the interview. However that can change and hopefully is improved in the near future.
Otherwise top notch interview!
>>> "[OSF's] close relationships to governments . . ."
Which are?
Well first off, the foundation has supported major news outlets. Sort of the point Snowden pointed out in the interview. They come in and control the narrative of the news we see each day. George Soros, the founder of the foundation, has deep connections with governments over here in Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Serbia, Hungary, Czech Republic, United Kingdom) and used to be one of the main lobbyist connection with the Obama offices. I recommend checking out their portfolio on their website. They excel at dividing societies and then conquer the incoming or weakened governments. I'm not saying the Freedom of the Press Foundation is one of those assets, but still it makes you wonder what the reasons for their support is, if FOTP wants to support journalists and don't cancel or destroy them... Hope that clears it up.
Taking money is one thing. Allowing them to control the narrative is quite another. If Snowden stands by his principles I don't think this will be a concern.
I see. Soros paranoia.
No, not with him as a person. Just the fact that this scenario I described above, turned into a reality as soon as the foundation was involved... The foundation is focused around him. Therefore I bring it up.
I see. Soros denial retardation.
Yeah...Rupert Murdoch isn’t like George Soros in the slightest.🤣
Both worship avarice as the one and only god. Is that having nothing in common?
Do you live under a rock? Do you even know what the internet is, or how to use it?
Funny, not a lib myself and though both these guys are are ex-pats, I view them are rock-ribbed American patriotic heroes.
Parents should hold them up as role models, something their children should to aspire to
Lobbying is a constitutional right, the First amendment, and so it is as important as free speech, which is also covered in the First Amendment. We have the right to petition the government as do organizations, such as the Open Society Foundation. When you write your senator or representative, you are lobbying!
The problem is not lobbying, it is allowing money to flow to candidates, allowing officials and their family and friends to be hired by companies that they provided votes for, allowing officials to be paid for speeches, etc. While we can end campaign donations, Citiaens United v FEC does not protect campaign contributions, the other paybacks are a bit more difficult to control, but some sorts of safe guards can be implemented.
In the beginning of the video Snowden talks about private email services. He belonged to one, called Lavabit. Not only was encryption encouraged, but Lavabit would not give out any information about their users. They would not even confirm or deny that a user existed on their service. After Snowden was identified, Lavabit was hit with a federal court order demanding certain information and possibly the need for the federal government to install its own snooper software on the site. On August 9, 2013, the owner of Lavabit announced the service was shutting down after 10 years. They had challenged the government’s right and lost in a secret court hearing. Almost immediately other private encrypted mail services also shutdown.
You can read all about it in an article in The Guardian by Glenn Greenwald. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/lavabit-shutdown-snowden-silicon-valley
CNET’s Declan McCullagh interviewed Lavabit’s owner, Ladar Levison, in October. https://www.cnet.com/news/lavabit-founder-says-he-fought-feds-to-protect-the-constitution/
McCullagh also speculated that Lavabit had been served with a court order to intercept passwords and encryption keys in a Google+ post that is no longer available. And, as far as I know, private email services still face the same pressures that Lavabit faced in 2013.
Ladar Levinson offered a prescient warning this is still good advice today:
“This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.”
Use public key encryption and protect your private keys.
"Didn't we all learn this point early on in school: there are criminals in the world, and allowing the police to break down our doors without warrants would help criminals be caught. Despite that fact, we don't allow the police to break down our doors without warrants, because the police can catch criminals by searching homes only when they have warrants, a process enshrined in the Constitution in order to avoid the inevitable abuse that comes from allowing the Government to search our homes without any oversight. Thus, people (such as the Founders) who favor the warrant requirement before the police can search our homes aren't pro-criminal. They know that criminals can be caught while preventing government abuse and lawlessness. Why is it so hard -- for some people -- to apply that same, quite basic reasoning to eavesdropping and all other forms of surveillance?"
Glenn Greenwald, in 2006, How it started...and how it's going.
The man never changed, Gd bless him.
I voted for this in the recent election: "Michigan voters overwhelmingly approve proposal 2 on search warrant for electronic data" https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/proposal-2-has-landslide-lead-to-pass-on-search-warrant-for-electronic-data
The huge margin by which it won had to include people from all over the political spectrum.
Hi Mona. Fellow Michigander here who also voted yes for proposal 2. Was surprised it made the ballot but happy to see the support it received. Tells me will never see the "Patriot" Act on citizens' ballots.
Thanks, Mona, I'd have never know without your post.
I first got on the internet in the late 1970s, LONG before most people even knew it existed.
There was no "web" then, it was mostly bulletin boards of various types, "list-serves" which evolved into something called "usenet" (which is topic-based), a very early and by modern standards primitive email system, and other text-only features.
My favorite "site" was called "The Source". It was a big computer and we who connected in effect were time-share users, though The Source didn't call us or their system that. Perhaps their most impressive feature was / were various live feeds from news outlets around the world including the Associated Press. ... You could set up "filters" based on keywords you'd give and then it would put articles that contained the patterns you gave it into your email in-box.
I got to the internet via a modem, at first acoustic-coupled where you'd literally plug your telephone hand-set into the device, and later I had a "d-cat" - direct-coupling (that is, via an RJ-11 plug just like the then-new "modular jack" telephone connectors).
Before the '70s were out, I got a job as a computer programmer and wrote an operating system for the TANO Outpost - this is LONG before Windows and Microsoft had just been founded - they were pedaling this primitive operating system called DOS, which was antiquated the day it was released, truly technically inferior (Gates surely didn't make his money due to technical superiority of his products!)... ... I wrote the networking software for the Outpost so it could talk with other computers, though it was all for private networking, usually via dedicated phone lines known as a T-1.
I later, in the early '80s, joined Digital Equipment Corp (variously "DEC" or "Digital"). DEC had the world's largest known network of computers in the world - connecting its own people! That network was done via something called Decnet and Digital sold that ability to others - the DEC-internal network was by the mid 1980s some tens of thousands of nodes. And Digital was busy working on improving the networking and at one point I worked on their most important networking team and helped develop DHCP - Distributed Host Control Protocol - which is still used today.
If I recall correctly, Decnet's original protocol, the first version of which was known as CSMACD - Carrier Sense, Multi-Access, Collision Detect - transmitted fairly large data packets to multiple computers simultaneously using a large diameter coaxial cable. They then added several other networking techniques because CSMACD was intended for local area networks and it would be nice to have remote connectivity, of course. And, eventually they went with small diameter coaxial cable as used on cable-TV at the time (and still).
As all that was happening, I also helped a little with this new fangled thing - new to us anyway - called Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP. TCP, later TCP/IP (the IP for Internet Protocol) would break up messages into smaller sizes. This lowered total throughput on a good line but on a bad line it worked better since a re-send of a big data packet is more expensive than sending a little one. BUT, TCP is point-to-point.
...The internet is really all based on computer networking, so these technologies were maturing in the mid 1980s. By the early '90s, I had moved on to database systems and joined a company working as a high-dollar consultant. Because of that role, and because of my technical background, I got to visit a substantial fraction the larger computing sites in the world - everyone from Boeing, hundreds of universities, large government facilities, you name it. And one of my key interests was the networking, so I'd ask how people were doing what they were doing....
At that time, the internet primarily consisted of one or more computers at a given site dedicated to the network. If you wanted to be on the internet, you'd have to volunteer to host a node and the dedicated networking lines to get the data in and out. And, of course, you'd also have to volunteer the technical talent to run the system(s). Everybody cooperated, donated time and resources, for the good of all.
So, as a user, you'd have to have some way to get to the network, such as in my own case, I had a computer on my desk connected to the company's internal network. If I wanted to send an email to someone in another company, I had to use our "email gateway," and how to do that depended on what kind of computer you had on your desk. Some of us had Unix boxes - you can think of Unix as an older version of Linux - and I was lucky having both Unix and VAX/VMS access, so I had multiple ways of getting to the internet other people didn't have, which occasionally was useful in overcoming some kind of technical problem. ...If I wanted to get online from home, I'd use "telnet" and these modem phone-banks for dial-up service and from there I could get into my computers at work and from there to the internet.
During that period, there was no web yet, no web browsers, etc, and it was mostly still as it was back on The Source except that now sound, images, video and other content had been standardized reasonably well. And, it became possible to log-in to other computers remotely and access their content "directly" as if you were logged in to a computer on your own desk (thanks to X-Windows). Not all that many people did this, but I liked it and still use the technique.
There were definitly security problems with this type of world, but there were few crackers, and most networking staff were pretty sharp and did a good job keeping things reasonable secure while also allowing many kinds of access. One common technique was to put content to be shared on a particular machine and then lock down access from that machine to the rest of an internal network. Rules like this made things pretty clumsy and nearly impossible for most corporate network users, but as I was a senior guy, I usually had system administrator privileges and could work around these issues.
Then, in about 1995, this all changed when the first web browsers, like Netscape, were launched and encryption started to truly come of age as well. At that point, the modern internet had been born, and in less than a year I was running my own web site. . . . THIS, I presume, is the Era that Snowden was thinking of - the second half of the 1990s...
>>> "THIS, I presume, is the Era that Snowden was thinking of - the second half of the 1990s..."
It's certainly the earliest era with which he would have had personal experience. He's much too young to have been around when we were excited to get actual 300 baud throughput.
You're right about excitement at 300 baud! Woo Hoo! It was so fast, it could ALMOST keep up with a competent typist! ... OK, well, I exaggerate a little!
The second half of the '90s was indeed a grand time to be on the net, if you knew what you were doing! But, we still had our frustrations. For example, I had to write my own C program to get access to "stat" data on a file which SHOULD have been a bash built-in, or at least already written, like ls. As another example, I had to write a LOT of helper tools to overcome the shortcomings of early Java.... And, I wrote my own version of wget, etc, all because you had to.
In modern times, most of my helper programs written up to, say, 2005, have been written as parts of official operating system or package distributions by others doing a better job than I did originally and I've happily adopted them, but I haven't deleted the old code - leaving it as a reminder of those days gone by.
After the Bell 101 at 110, 300 was blazing. And the bits just kept on coming. I remember, in the mid(?)-90s, listening to new 2400 modems we had connected to improve communication with systems on dial-up in the remote hinterlands (MicroVAX 3100s) go though their handshake protocol. "Just listen to how fast that is!"
Always save your code! You never know, and it's nice to reminisce.
Didn't the builtin "file" command, which uses the stat system call give you what you needed? Or were you working on a non-nix system then? Regardless, you were writing C code, which qualifies you as a certifiable geek, which is even better than being certified. ;^)
OK, enough talk about prehistory.
I find it humorous you call it "prehistory"! ... Yeah, I guess I'm a prehistoric!
I started so young, I'm not yet of expected-to-be-retired just yet, though most of those I have worked with long since have....
Though I worked for DEC through that period, I didn't really work with the MicroVaxes much. BUT I do recall the advent of the 2400 baud modems!
I appreciate your comment about "always save your code". MOSTLY I have done so, but I've lost some I wish I hadn't. Such are the vagaries of backup systems, unfortunately.
As for your assertion of the builtin file command, I have been unfamiliar with it until your comment. Apparently it's a BSD thing, and, as I haven't been a user of BSD since the early '90s, it's something I've just not known about.
I've just checked it out and I obviously have a lot to learn about it as it seems like a very useful utility, it doesn't actually address the need of the stat utility I spoke of earlier. That is, they're both useful but not for identical purposes.
I'm very welcome for your further comments; when you're through learning, your trough!
Not sure which branch the file command came from. In my mind, it's been there forever, but Unix was already more than a decade old when I first met it. I'm sure the command was in System V Release 4 ("SVR4") in the late 80s, but that was the result of AT&T forcing a merger of all the system branches, so it certainly could have come from the Berkeley branch.
The 'nix universe is so huge that none of us are ever going to get close to knowing more than "enough," but enough is a lot and it's a fun universe to play in.
At least on my youngest Fedora box, if you run $ man file, the top line indicates file came from BSD. stat, it turns out, came from gnu.
Regarding, "The 'nix universe is so huge that none of us are ever going to get close to knowing more than "enough," but enough is a lot and it's a fun universe to play in," I agree
The expansion of the computing universe mirrors the whole universe in a real way; the invention of the microchip was the equivalent of the big bang. ... When I first started, I dare say it was possible for someone to know a little bit about nearly all of it. But there's no way now for anyone to even to know what it is they don't know about, and that's been true for a very long time and it's growing exponentially.
That said, I'd guess my generation is the last to even have a clue "how it all works" from a theoretical perspective since I hear from younger ones coming along, people are "siloed" into "tracks" of specialization so it's nearly impossible for someone to get a full education - those in a position to be the most informed are chip designers because they must understand the software, too. In sharp contrast to today's education, I learned the hardware and the software, made my own motherboards and daughter cards and so forth, and even did the logic design for a chip (which, unfortunately, I couldn't afford to bring to market - it would have given us quad-CPU "home computers" at about the same time the Macintosh was still on the drawing board).
One of the more interesting things in this universe I've observed is the changing goal posts of "artificial intelligence" - the expression doesn't mean today anything like what it meant in the late 1970s, which isn't anything like what it meant in the late '80s, etc... Not long ago I heard on the radio a commercial for a firm advertising that they were bringing artificial intelligence to the business community to "solve previously unsolvable business problems." So, I called 'em up. And yep, just like I thought, sorry guys, it's just plain ole data processing, just with much faster hardware, though, along with a wonkey concept for how to express those business problems. But SSSSSHHHHH! Don't tell anyone, the stock price might drop!
What I am wondering about, though, is if quantum computing will ever be a real "thing." I think they're up to about ten q-bits today - FAR from enough to do anything really useful. At this rate, I'll have been dead over a hundred years before a quantum computer is useful!
I'm curious what some of your observations are.
Snowden pointed out the obvious problem that people expect advertising companies like Google and Facebook to protect free speech. Clearly, this expectation is wrong.
I am glad to see that Mr. Snowden is doing well. I have ordered his book. Society has not rewarded him for his service and it is the least I can do
Unfortunately, those proceeds go to the government not Snowden. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-grants-government-proceeds-from-edward-snowdens-book/2019/12/17/ab38c2a8-160e-11ea-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html
You're a breath of fresh air, Glenn. As a Millennial I'm not accustomed to paying for news content, because 90% of it is free, but your interview with Rogan, and your criticism of the militarism and corporatism on both sides of the aisle, convinced me of your sincere journalistic integrity (a characteristic in short supply today) and the need to support such integrity financially (in the hope it will grow). Finally, your exposure of the Hunter Biden scandal suppression, and criticism of all forms of social media and government censorship, makes it clear you are not a paid propagandist of the establishment (like many of your counterparts in the MSM) and you are willing to call bull$#!% on all censorship, even if it's not popular to do so. Keep up the good work
I love the way Mr. Snowdon closed the interview with, "Stay free." I've been saying that for a while now as a reply to those who use the banal "new normal" post-conversational salutation, "Stay safe!" I usually preface my reply with something like, "Safety is an illusion," just to clarify my point.
Sadly, in our (anything but) Brave New World, I suppose that has also become true of freedom.
Why does "theintercept.com" roll after the end credits? Aren't we finished with The Intercept?
So you disapprove of copyright laws? Good for GG he holds some copywright power over distribution of that video! Would that more reporters were sufficiently self-respecting to do the same or refuse to publish at the corporate misleading cults like NYT, WaPo, NBC, et. al. Keep in mind that CIA bribing techies was nothing new for the cia or for invetors who pushed the whole stupid poop fest that continues this day brainwashing all the peeps who remain addicted to TV brain-washing swamp. Letting Bill Gates & Elon Musk, et. al., have copyright protections for their pet crap factories and not making that law general is part of what the problem is for more than the media & reporters who help us see the class-hierachies dominating US imperial collapse. On the other hand, perhaps we should create a holiday celebrating US imperial collapse?
psssht..exactly
Snowden signs off, "Stay free." You've done rather well on that score, Mr. Greenwald. Congratulations. I subscribed today simply because I value integrity in journalism. You've got it. It’s a rare quality in any profession in America today. I wish I could afford to give more.
How will Glenn’s operation grow ? Will he have staff and research capability moving forward ? I suspect everyone who joined his substack for $50 is on some watchlist kept by someone for some reason. All this Stasi like tracking and spying is so much wasted human energy.
Not very bright future ahead on freedom of speech and freedom of journalistic activities. Hope judgement on Julian Assange is a refusal of extradition, for himself of course in the first place, and also to may be open a window to go start reverse the course. Unfortunately we cannot think that we could have virtous governments in the western said democracies, which we should speak about really, as it is the point where it all starts.
Thanks for posting. I feel honored to be getting such information first hand early on in the news cycle. It has become impossible to ferret out the truth by reading both sides with all of their agitprop, feints and double dealing. Will Biden et al break up “big tech” or cut their own deal to continue keeping out Conservatives ?
How long before we are at “War” with the Neo Liberals returning to their seats of power and influence ?
Is Nation Building in vogue again ?