Snowden and Putin Q&A

[Robert]

Snowden asked: "Does Russia intercept or store or analyse the communication of millions of individuals?" He went on to ask whether increasing the effectiveness of internal security systems could ever justify such actions.

To applause from the studio audience, Putin responded: "Mr Snowden you are a former agent, a spy, I used to work for a intelligence service, we are going to talk the same language."
He said Russia did not have a comparable programme, stating: "Our agents are controlled by law. You have to get court permission to put an individual under surveillance. We don't have mass permission, and our law makes it impossible for that kind of mass permission to exist."
He said he was aware that "criminals and terrorists" relied on this kind of interception, and that their actions demanded a response from the security services. "We have to use technical means to respond to their crimes, including those of a terrorist nature, we do have some efforts like that. We don't have a mass control. I hope we don't do that," he said.
"We don't have as much money as they do in the US," he added.

More here, including youtube clip:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/putin-edward-snowden-russia-mass-surveillance

 

[Glaucus]

You'd think Snowden would be tech savvy enough to just Google the answer for himself. SORM

SORM (Russian: Система Оперативно-Розыскных Мероприятий, literally "System for Operative Investigative Activities") is a technical system for search and surveillance in the internet. A Russian law passed in 1995 allows the FSB to monitor telephone and internet communications.

In July 1998 the system was replaced by SORM-2 to allow monitoring of the internet, in addition to telephone communications. According to some reports, under SORM-2 Russian Internet service providers (ISPs) must install a special device on their servers to allow the FSB to track all credit card transactions, e-mail messages and web use. The device, which has been estimated to cost $10,000-$30,000, must be installed at the ISP's expense. Other reports note that some ISPs have had to install direct communications lines to the FSB and that costs for implementing the required changes were in excess of $100,000.
On July 25, 2000, Russia's Minister of Information Technology and Communications Leonid Reiman issued the order No 130 "Concerning the introduction of technical means ensuring investigative activity (SORM) in phone, mobile and wireless communication and radio paging networks" stating that the FSB was no longer required to provide telecommunications and Internet companies documentation on targets of interest prior to accessing information. ([1], full text of the order in Russian: [2])

PRISM and SORM: Big Brother is watching

“The Russian system is even more advanced [than the American one],” Andrei Soldatov, an investigative journalist and author of several books on Russian security services, told The Moscow News. “There has also been a massive increase in its [surveillance] activity recently, provoked in part by the Moscow protests … and by the changes in the political situation.”
Russia’s system of legal communication interception is called SORM (System for Operative Investigative Activities). What the program lacks in evocative nomenclature, it makes up for in breadth.
Developed by the KGB in the mid-1980s, it has now developed to include three inclusive branches. SORM-1 intercepts telephone traffic, including mobile networks; SORM-2 monitors Internet communication, including VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) programs like Skype; and SORM-3 gathers information from all types of communication media.

Legally, the agency must first get a court warrant. Then it can order a phone or Internet provider to purchase, install and maintain a SORM device on its networks (at the provider’s own expense). According to Russian law, the agency doesn’t have to show the warrant to the provider, or give it any information about whom it is monitoring or why. This way, the government can bypass dealing with the provider entirely.

There is no real oversight process regarding warrant checks, Soldatov said.“It’s all regulated by internal procedure, by the FSB, essentially,” he told The Moscow News. “Supposedly, there’s some sort of prosecutor control, but nobody’s heard of it [being used]. Nobody is required to show these warrants, so [we] never know for sure whether [the agencies] actually have one.”

It's all according to the law of course, and the law says civilians must trust the security officers to act lawfully - who are not required to prove that they are acting lawfully. I'm absolutely shocked Putin neglected to mention that. I'm sure it's an honest oversight.

 

[Robert]

Of course it's horsefeathers - Putin's no more trustworthy than any other leader - but it was a propaganda open goal and he gratefully took it.

 

[Robert]

And here's Snowden's own explanation:

The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden's question and mine here.)

Clapper's lie – to the Senate and to the public – was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.

In his response, Putin denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter. There are serious inconsistencies in his denial – and we'll get to them soon – but it was not the president's suspiciously narrow answer that was criticised by many pundits. It was that I had chosen to ask a question at all.

I was surprised that people who witnessed me risk my life to expose the surveillance practices of my own country could not believe that I might also criticise the surveillance policies of Russia, a country to which I have sworn no allegiance, without ulterior motive. I regret that my question could be misinterpreted, and that it enabled many to ignore the substance of the question – and Putin's evasive response – in order to speculate, wildly and incorrectly, about my motives for asking it.

...
Putin's response was remarkably similar to Barack Obama's initial, sweeping denials of the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance programs, before that position was later shown to be both untrue and indefensible.

Rest of the article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden

 

[Glaucus]

This was covered on ars and some people did think that maybe Snowden was setting Putin up to expose him a liar. Perhaps that's true, but I would argue that it's pointless as there would be no political fallout as Putin controls what people see and read (or as fluffy would say, the Russian civilians will see what is intended for them to see, be it Olympic rings, Crimea or whatever). Also I read elsewhere that the call in show is highly scripted and Putin was not only fully expecting the question but that it was his idea to begin with. So who knows what that was all about, at least we can agree that Putin's answer was bulsh!t.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

This was covered on ars and some people did think that maybe Snowden was setting Putin up to expose him a liar.

True or not, it's not highly relevant. Putin is not our leader, not our sovereign, not our owner. My issue remains the hypocrisy. Why is it wrong when Putin does it but it's OK for us? Why was it wrong for the Ukrainian government to outlaw protesting with helmets, masks, blocking traffic, occupying buildings but it is not wrong for our laws to stop us from doing those same things? Why is it wrong for the government of Ukraine to force foreign NGOs to register as foreign agents but it's OK for us? Why is it wrong for Russia to encourage, possibly even run a referendum to cause the population of a chunk of land who have natural affinity for Russia to vote to join Russia bloodlessly but it is OK for us to back groups to violently overthrow elected governments prior to scheduled elections only a year away which costs civilian lives? Why is it OK for us to invade all sorts of countries on trumped up reasons but it is not OK for other countries to have military bases in countries by agreement?
Russia is not the shining beacon on the hill, but we are on no more firm moral ground except by demonizing Russia which has, over the last few decades, behaved itself much better than we have.

 

[Glaucus]

Snowden says he regrets his on-TV question to Putin.

Snowden’s Camp: Staged Putin Q&A Was a Screw-Up

Turns out his intent was to get the ball rolling as he did in the US with governments openly discussing such issues. I guess he didn't realize that Putin was a master at this game and he'd turn it around in his favor. I thought perhaps Snowden was gonna follow up with some Russian leaks to prove the opposite of what Putin said, but I guess not.

 

[Robert]

I thought perhaps Snowden was gonna follow up with some Russian leaks...

As far as I can gather, all secrets Snowden had were passed on to journalists prior to him leaving Hong Kong.

 

[Glaucus]

As far as I can gather, all secrets Snowden had were passed on to journalists prior to him leaving Hong Kong.

Yes, but I remember also that not all the secrets were published. I read that some of those unpublished secrets were to be published in the event that something bad happened to Snowden. I thought that perhaps he also had some dirt on other nations like Russia that have been kept in secure storage somewhere.

 

[Robert]

Yes, but I remember also that not all the secrets were published. I read that some of those unpublished secrets were to be published in the event that something bad happened to Snowden. I thought that perhaps he also had some dirt on other nations like Russia that have been kept in secure storage somewhere.

True. I'm sure there is plenty more to come. That said, it's likely to be mostly about the USA and allies, given where Snowden worked.