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. 

Look Who's Cancelled Now

Mercury @ the Bargello

In April I experienced the Renaissance in an all new manner. I spent 11 days in Italy, mostly Florence but also Parma. Florence has to be considered the fertile soil that birthed the Renaissance. Parma is a symbol of the fight against fascism. All kinds of thoughts and feelings were generated by this experience. I am still processing all these things--both ideas and observations--and realize I still have so much to learn. 

The trigger for this blog post was an opinion piece titled Porn, power and the other p-word in conservative America by Julie Szego, a journalist who lost her job because she wrote about trans censorship in Australia. Being attuned to this issue from personal experience, she's unafraid to get real about the censorship coming from both the Left and the Right in our contemporary world.

When she mentioned Michelangelo's David, which I'd been awed by in April, I felt a need to underscore the challenges we face today with regard to free speech and free thought, a recurring theme of mine here on a blog that has itself be "cancelled" on Facebook and Instagram. 

The starting point for her article is an incident in which a Florida principal was sacked because "a parent complained students were exposed to “pornography” – in the form of Michelangelo’s statue of David." If you go to Florence, or study art history, you'll see more than your share of nude human bodies. You'll also see nude bodies in high school gym class (unless they don't take showers any more) and at the Y, I believe.

Purchase your own personal David in the gift shop.
at the Accademe.

That being said, she continued in this vein.

Two of the irate parents complained to the board of Tallahassee Classical School that they weren’t warned their children would encounter an image of Michelangelo’s iconic artwork. Another described the 5.17-metre statue of an entirely naked David, the biblical giant slayer, as pornographic. Shocking that three angry parents can force a principal’s resignation. Not at all shocking that for some Americans the bare representation of the human body is tantamount to pornography.

It is hardly news that lust drives so much of male endeavour, be it with sword or marble, or Sigmund Freud never did exist. That doesn’t make Michelangelo’s masterpiece porn, but I’m not sure we can claim his inspiration sprang entirely from the celestial without any contribution from the carnal.

There are two sides to every story. In America’s blue states – only slightly less nutty than their red counterparts – you can reportedly find schools where teachers not only say “gay”, they give kids how-to manuals. And while folks in those parts won’t usually see pornography in art, some might bend over backwards to see art in pornography lest they be accused of … conservatism.

I may not agree with everything people think or say, but I admire the courage of people like Camille Paglia, Julie Szego or Scott Adams who aren't afraid to put it out there and accept the consequences. 

Other Risky Topics  Too Hot To Handle

Critical of Zionism

Stanford Palestinian Student Forced to Resign for Facebook Post Critical of Zionism

Wrote about Trans Censorship

I was sacked for writing about trans censorship

Doctor fired for criticizing COVID policies
https://www.foxnews.com/media/law-group-stanford-fired-doctor-criticizing-covid-policies-engaged-employment-discrimination

Andrew Tate Canceled for being Mysogynist 

(Old videos were taken out of context)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwilson/2022/08/30/the-downfall-of-andrew-tate-and-its-implications/?sh=406eb176ca07

RFK Jr being cancelled for this

Robert Kennedy Jr. challenged Tony Fauci to produce one NIH study on the safety of Vaccines.

"None of the mandated Vaccines have ever been tested against a placebo-controlled trial before licensing."

Fauci stonewalled for a year and then admitted they didn't have it.

https://twitter.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1665687256533745668

Used the word Niggardly

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

While looking for examples of things people have been cancelled for, I came across this piece. 

Trilateral Commission Members Driving Censorship Campaigns (This is the organisation with a member called Keir Starmer)

https://davidicke.com/2023/06/11/trilateral-commission-members-driving-censorship-campaigns-this-is-the-organisation-with-a-member-called-keir-starmer/

Whatever happened to "I may not agree with you but I defend your right to say it." Isn't that what Free Speech is about? 

On Cancel Culture and Freedom of Speech -- Quotes & Tweets

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies.
--Wikipedia

* * * 

I'm not really sure how to describe my feelings about the degree to which cancel culture has swept over the social media landscape like a tsunami. Some instances have been amusing, others appalling, some silly and some brutally frightening. 

Someone sent me an email this past week or so. I'd mention his or her name but I'd hate to paint a target on his or her back. 

* * * 

HERE are a few quotes I've run across that I thought you'd enjoy, especially as a victim of cancel culture.

Thomas Erskine on the advantages of Free Speech.

“When men can freely communicate their thoughts and their sufferings, real or imaginary, their passions spend themselves in air, like gunpowder scattered upon the surface; but pent up by terrors, they work unseen, burst forth in a moment, and destroy everything in their course.”  (Rex v. Paine, 1792)

 

John Stuart Mills (On Liberty, 1859)

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”  

Henry George (Progress and Poverty, 1879)

“The law of human progress, what is it but the moral law?  Just as social adjustments promote justice, just as they acknowledge the equality of right between man and man, just as they insure to each the perfect liberty which is bounded only by the equal liberty of every other, must civilization advance.  Just as they fail in this, must advancing civilization come to a halt and recede.”

Justice Holmes on the free exchange of ideas.

“The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

 
* * * 

To the above I will add one more, from the Oregon Constitution:

"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatever."

* * * 

Here's a Tweet I saw this morning.

Cancel culture is modern excommunication for today’s unrepentant heretics.

It doesn't take much effort to find others.

 

Lyn The only thing that should be canceled is cancel culture itself. It's very unhealthy and counterproductive.

Brit Hume: My alma mater has gone off the deep end. A Medical Student Questioned Microaggressions. UVA Branded Him a Threat and Banned Him from Campus https://reason.com/2021/04/07/microaggressions-uva-student-kieran-bhattacharya-threat/

Fran cancel culture claims its newest victim... laying low for a while

* * *

What I'm wondering is whether this current backlash against free speech is the fruit of those forces outlined in in Haidt & Lukianoff's The Coddling of the American Mind. C.S. Lewis once wrote, "The worst of all public dangers is the committee of public safety." 

Related Links  

Are Children Being Raised "Too Safe To Succeed"?

Bubble-Wrapped Americans: How the U.S. Became Obsessed with Physical and Emotional Safety