Snowden has made us all less secure and the Guardian, in his arrogance, has been his willing accomplice.
Almost two years ago, CIA traitor Edward Snowden fled to the much-hoped-for sanctuary in Moscow, after he began spreading his employers’ secrets like leaves in the wind.
Western liberal newspapers, run by the Guardian in Britain and the Washington Post in the United States, proclaimed him a freedom activist because he exposed the extent of government electronic surveillance of all of our lives.
He had alerted all terrorists on the planet to the methods used by intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic to probe their plots.
He even shamefully criticized a “f *** – up” of the newspapers involved for not having written up sensitive operational details.
Almost everyone – including security chiefs past and present, the prime minister, and foreign and defense secretaries from the two main parties – have denounced Snowden for wreaking havoc on the cause of public safety.
Sir David Omand, the former head of British intelligence, described Snowden’s revelations as “the most catastrophic loss on record for British intelligence”.
A direct consequence is that Al Qaeda now publishes a manual explaining to its supporters how to escape government prying eyes.
Yet the Guardian has always insisted that Snowden “has rendered a public service.” Meanwhile, a group of the type Lenin used to call “useful idiots” appealed for funds in London to erect a statue for him.
Snowden himself has solemnly assured that he has sifted through all the documents he has disclosed to reporters, in order to ensure that no information that could identify Western intelligence agents – and therefore put their lives. endangered – does not enter the public domain.
On the weekend, however, interviewed on American television by British comedian John Oliver, the renegade admitted that he had not read the material he blithely unloads. He simply “assessed” two million files stolen from the US National Security Agency – about 68,000 of them from GCHQ, the UK intelligence agency.
Last week, tonight’s host John Oliver traveled to Moscow to grill Edward Snowden over the “harmful” material leak and asks him to explain why he did it.
All of a sudden, the traitor has thus stripped his own fig leaf defense for his actions.
Snowden continues to publish bundles of documents: the last one, last week, dealt with potential British disinformation techniques against Argentina.
Meanwhile, the controversy over his actions, and the legitimate limits of government eavesdropping, is growing fiercer.
The United Nations Human Rights Council, spurred on by Snowden’s revelations, has appointed a privacy “rapporteur” and issued a resolution lamenting “negative entry surveillance, when carried out extensively. scale, can have on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights’.
The Guardian applauded this as helping to establish the idea that “not to be subjected to excessive surveillance is a fundamental right”.
We can all agree that tyrannies, including Russia and China, exploit surveillance to strangle personal freedom. But it seems difficult to make a convincing claim that law-abiding UK and US citizens are suffering at the hands of their own intelligence agencies.
These secret organizations simply download large amounts of “bulk data” – telephone and email traffic – and “analyze” it for terrorist activity that we know is too real.
By far the most important and effective weapon for monitoring those in our own societies who wish us harm – and there are thousands of them – is electronic surveillance. Intelligence agents say this is the only advantage they have over extremists, when it is nearly impossible to use agents to break into their cells.
The Guardian applauded this as helping to establish the idea that “not to be subjected to excessive surveillance is a fundamental right”
In the wake of Snowden’s revelations, US internet service providers are cynically trying to profit by aggressively marketing all customer encryption techniques that defy government surveillance technology.
Large American companies that previously cooperated closely with British intelligence agencies are now extremely reluctant to do so.
Robert Hannigan, Director of GCHQ, gave an important speech last November in which he highlighted how, thanks to their awakening from Snowden activities, the jihadist terrorist group ISIS and other extremist forces have become very concerned about the security. – use couriers instead of phones and emails and leverage encryption.
Under pressure from civil liberties advocates, large internet companies such as Google are now striving to protect their customers without distinguishing between the interests of law-abiding and those of terrorists.
Hannigan says: “Techniques for encrypting or anonymizing messages that were once the prerogative of the most sophisticated criminals or nation states are now standard.”
Some apps proudly advertise themselves as “Snowden Approved”. “There is no doubt that young foreign fighters have learned and benefited from the [Snowden] leaks, ”he adds.
The director of GCHQ concluded that law enforcement agencies need a lot more help and access than they currently receive from the US service providers who dominate the net.
A lot of us think we should get it. Privacy is not an absolute.
Governments throughout history have had to do unwanted things to protect their citizens from evil.
In the old days, you had to build a series of defensive forts – Martello Towers – on the Channel coast or anti-aircraft guns in Hyde Park in London. Today, different threats require different remedies.
It is essential that the intelligence services act within the law and remain subject to parliamentary control.
As a citizen, I feel much less comfortable with the enormous knowledge that banks and online merchants have accumulated about every detail of our lives than with the idea of GCHQ or MI5 reading my emails. or listen to my phone.
I am ready to believe that the intelligence services are on our side. They do what they do in the best interests of our society. I would certainly prefer to rely on their judgment rather than that of the Guardian and Edward Snowden.
He simply ‘assessed’ two million files stolen from the US National Security Agency – around 68,000 of them from GCHQ (pictured), the UK intelligence agency
Indeed, the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee agreed that the agencies had acted in a “legal, necessary and proportionate manner.” Moreover, Snowden has deceived himself by refusing to accept the consequences of his own actions as a so-called “champion of freedom” and by staying to defend his case in a US court.
Instead, he settled like a monkey perched on a stick on the wall of the Kremlin, snorting to the delight of Vladimir Putin and his friends – and the grave embarrassment of Britain and the United Kingdom. America.
The Russians are delighted with the misdeeds Snowden continues to do, as are other enemies of democracy around the world.
The recent actions and statements of this computer geek make absurd his claims to be a standard bearer for human rights. He is, on the contrary, an anarchist, rejoicing in the promotion of disorder in Washington and Whitehall.
The bad news is that he still has thousands of additional files that he will drip into the market for ISIS, Al Qaeda and Guardian readers.
There have always been – and always will be – people like him, who seek to cover up betrayal under the guise of superior loyalty.
It is those who support and applaud them that are more difficult to understand, as they seem blind to the imperatives of protecting our society from the threat of Muslim extremism.
When intelligence services say Snowden caused substantial damage to their capabilities, most of us believe them.
Yet later this year, a group of civil liberties groups will challenge GHCQ’s hacking operations in court.
An independent review of the anti-terrorism legislation is planned after the elections, and in December 2016, the emergency legislation of last July allowing intelligence agencies to collect electronic data en masse will expire and need to be renewed.
Meanwhile, human rights lobbyists will continually agitate for tighter restrictions on surveillance.
If their campaign to make privacy absolute is successful, they will equate the protection of terrorists from scrutiny with that of law-abiding citizens.
Those of us who believe the intelligence services deserve our support in this argument must ensure that our voices are heard as clearly as those of the Snowden fan club.
A small loss of privacy seems like a fair price to pay for defending yourself against the fanatics, who have already shed enough innocent blood.