An Overview of Glenn Greenwald's "No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State"

One of my ongoing areas of interest has been the issue of free speech and free thought. I've written numerous times about Bertrand Russell's 1922 lecture on this topic, and frequently warned about the  government's use of propaganda to persuade (manipulate) the masses. It is for this reason I have been interested it the stories of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. 

This blog post will explore Glenn Greenwald's No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, a compelling exposé on the expansive surveillance practices of the National Security Agency (NSA) revealed through the whistleblower Edward Snowden. Published in 2014, the book is a detailed account of Snowden's disclosures and the broader implications for privacy, democracy, and government accountability. After the overview I will share what some of Greenwald's critics have said.

* * * * * 

No Place To Hide has five sections. The first details how Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald became involved with bringing Snowden's revelations to light. The meticulous planning and risks involved have the feel of a Mission Impossible flick. It soon becomes apparent why bringing to light these "dark secrets" was such a big deal.

Section two details the scope of NSA surveillance. Americans have generally assumed that there were laws restricting what the NSA, CIA and other agencies have authority to do. Snowden's experience showed him how these agencies have gathered extensive data on American citizens and international targets alike. (They don't call them "spooks" for nothing.)

Greenwald provides examples of various programs, such as PRISM and XKeyscore, which enabled the government to intercept communications and gather metadata. According to Greenwald and Snowden, these agencies were scraping info about us from the biggest social media platforms including Facebook, Google, Yahoo! and Skype. 

One of the first stories the Guardian published was how during the Obama administration the NSA was collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers. The White House, once this was exposed, defended this mass surveillance of U.S. citizens as necessary for our safety from homeland threats.

Part three lays out the rationale for exposing these government actions, how mass surveillance erodes civil liberties and creates a chilling effect on free speech and dissent. He highlights the constitutional and ethical concerns of pervasive government monitoring, contending that it undermines the principles of a democratic society. (Yes, this is 1984 revisited, in real life.)

Part four goes into detail about media complicity, all the various media players and and other players who willingly participated. Greenwald also discusses the challenges he faced in publishing the Snowden revelations and the broader issues of journalistic integrity and
independence.

The last section is a call to action. Greenwald concludes with an appeal for increased transparency, legal reforms, and public awareness to combat unchecked surveillance. He emphasizes the need for collective action to protect individual privacy and civil liberties.

* * * * *

As you can imagine, not everyone feels the same regardng this book or the actions of whistleblowers like Edwad Snowden. Here are the pros and cons.

POSITIVE REMARKS

Supporters laud Greenwald for his courageous journalism and commitment to transparency. They argue that No Place to Hide sheds light on the extent of government overreach and the importance of protecting democratic freedoms. The book is praised for its meticulous documentation and compelling narrative, which brings crucial issues to the forefront of public discourse.

Many view Greenwald's work as a vital defense of privacy in the digital age. By exposing the NSA's surveillance tactics, the book underscores the need to safeguard personal information from unwarranted government intrusion. Advocates for privacy rights see the book as a critical reminder of the threats posed by mass surveillance.

The book is credited with sparking significant public debate and policy discussions around surveillance and privacy. Snowden's revelations contributed to legal challenges and calls for reform, highlighting their influence on both public opinion and legislative action.

CRITICAL VIEWS

Perhaps the biggest issue has to do with concerns over national security. Critics argue that Greenwald's disclosures, and those of Snowden, compromised national security by revealing classified information. Such leaks endanger intelligence operations and international relations, making it harder for agencies to protect against genuine threats.

Some detractors question Greenwald's objectivity, suggesting that his staunch advocacy for privacy rights and criticism of government overreach may skew his analysis. They argue that his portrayal of the NSA and its activities lacks nuance and fails to adequately consider the complexities of intelligence work.

In light of the above, the book's sympathetic portrayal of Snowden is controversial. While some view Snowden as a hero, others see him as a traitor. Critics argue that Greenwald's narrative may romanticize whistleblowing without fully addressing the potential legal and ethical ramifications.

Bottom Line

It's an enlightening read even if we already knew that our privacy is being violated. The extent to which our personal info is being gleaned is out there in other books like Bob Hoffman's BadMen: How Advertising Went From A Minor Annoyance To A Major Menace. The degree to which our own government has been active in this, however, is disturbing, even scary. If you're unfamiliar with the Snowden story, this is probably a good place to start. 

Thoughts on Journalism after Watching The Fifth Estate, a Film about Julian Assange

The Fifth Estate is a compelling film about the emergence of Wikileaks as a global force. It's extremely well done, especially seeing Benedict Cumberbatch become Julian Assange. The film is co-written by one of the characters in the film based on a book by that self-same person, Daniel Berg. 

This is not a review of the film, but a handful of thoughts about journalism, stimulated by having watched this last night. 

The world is full of secrets, but governments are especially shrouded in fog and veils of secrecy. If, however, government is purportedly as extension of the people, is granted power to rule by consent of the people, then how can we effectively trust them if we can't see what they are doing?

This is where journalism comes in. This is what "freedom of the press" is supposedly about. But when government agencies do really awful things and lie about it, the only way the truth gets out is for whistleblowers to call attention to these misdeeds. Unfortunately, the whistleblowers almost always pay a price for this, which can include losing one's livelihood, their standing in the community or even jail.

As Julian Assange put it, "This... really defines the essence of what we're trying to achieve. Privacy for the individual, transparency for institutions, with your personal safety as a whistleblower guaranteed through anonymity as an individual."

Daniel Domscheit-Berg

Daniel Berg, is a German technology activist who Assange recruited to help execute his vision. After a critical leak in which Assange and the team published unredacted material that put lives in danger, Berg split from Wikileaks and wrote a book about it titled Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website, which became the basis for this film, the chief criticism being that the story is slanted.

The reviews are fairly mixed, but I see this as an important film because it raises good questions and addresses issues that need to be assessed. 

What follows are quotes from various sources dealing with the journalistic profession.

"It takes two things to change the world and you'd be surprised how many people have good ideas. Commitment, true commitment, requires sacrifice."
--Julian Assange

Julian exposed another set of wars...what do you say to people like Chelsea Manning and Julian, who’s the principal target of the legal and judicial brutalities taking place, when they reveal stuff, which everyone knows it’s true, since some of it is on video — Americans bombing Iraqi families, totally innocent... laughing about it and are recorded killing them? That’s a big joke. Well, it isn’t a big joke for the millions who have died in the Arab world since these 20 years of war began. And Julian, far from being indicted, should actually be a hero... He should never have been kept in prison for bail. He should not be in prison now awaiting a trial for extradition. He should be released.

--Tariq Ali

You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion.
--Julian Assange

WikiLeaks... published nearly 400,000 field reports about the Iraq War, which contained evidence of U.S. war crimes, over 15,000 previously unreported deaths of Iraqi civilians, and the systematic murder, torture, rape and abuse by the Iraqi army and authorities that were ignored by U.S. forces.

--Marjorie Cohn

If Julian is to be prosecuted, then there’s an equally good case for the editor and journalists in The Guardian... New York Times, Der Spiegel, El País, La República and all the other organizations involved in this coverage being prosecuted, too. Obama, in spite of his liberal background, failed to stand up to the pressure from the intelligence agencies, and he used the draconian 1917 Espionage Act and other laws against whistleblowers and journalists. In fact, Obama was responsible for more prosecutions and action against journalists and whistleblowers than all the other presidents in the U.S. combined.
--Ewen MacAskill

The fat Russian agent was cornering all the foreign refugees in turn and explaining plausibly that this whole affair was an Anarchist plot. I watched him with some interest, for it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies—unless one counts journalists.

--George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

Secretive power loathes journalists who do their job: who push back screens, peer behind façades, lift rocks. Opprobrium from on high is their badge of honour.
--John Pilger

Journalists can help people by telling the truth, or by as much truth as they can find, and acting not as agents of governments, of power, but of people. That is real journalism. The rest is specious and false.

It was a fatal day when the public discovered that the pen is mightier than the paving-stone, and can be made as offensive as the brickbat. They at once sought for the journalist, found him, developed him, and made him their industrious and well-paid servant. It is greatly to be regretted, for both their sakes. Behind the barricade there may be much that is noble and heroic. But what is there behind the leading-article but prejudice, stupidity, cant, and twaddle? And when these four are joined together they make a terrible force, and constitute the new authority.

--Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

Today's quotes were prompted by the following statement from an article on Medium. It has nothing to do with The Fifth Estate, but makes a thoughtful contribution to what is being stirred here.

"What prompted me to journal for the first time in so long is the sense that I was hitting a new inflection point. I felt that the density of my personality had deteriorated. My inner life as of late has only one or two tempos. A full orchestra became just one oboe, and a viola. The cellos are gone, as well as the French horns."
--Timothy Kim, [journals] 11-26-2021

* * * * 

Trivia: Julian Assange contacted Cumberbatch and tried to dissuade him from being in the film.

Trivia: On September 18 2013, Wikileaks released a mature version of the complete script to the public, because "the film is, from WikiLeaks' perspective, irresponsible, counterproductive and harmful." They also published a "Talking Points" memo "because it represents a frank internal appraisal of [the film] and what is wrong with it."

Statement from one of the reviewers on imdb.com:
"It seems like so much of what we hear today, from politicians and celebrities and publicists is 'spin.' And most of us are aware that there's more than they're telling us."

Feedback welcome. This is intended as a conversation starter. Feel free to comment.