[discuss] Snowden Revelations: What concrete activities were revealed that led us here?

Thu Jan 16 08:14:07 UTC 2014

Gregory, 

These are the kinds of hard questions we have to ask of issues of Internet Governance that stray outside purely technical matters. What is the real impact of the problem? What can people involved in Internet Governance effectively do about the problem? 

It is important to understand the location of the relevant arenas for making change as well as the relevant stakeholders within those arenas. For example, some speak about "the US" as if it is a massive monolith reacting to a single set of instructions. Yet, there are significant players across the US political spectrum looking at ways to prevent the abuses of the Snowden revelations.

As I have said in other posts people involved in Internet Governance can raise issues, publicise them, propose acceptable behaviours, etc.; but often effective change will occur when national governments adopt and operationalise those acceptable behaviours. An area of focus for people in Internet Governance is how to interact with national stakeholders who can in turn effect change at this level. 

On another level your post reminds me of an advertisement for a hamburger chain in the US from many years ago where an old lady starts asking "Where's the beef?" I think we need to take a critical look at the Snowden material and ask the questions you pose. Does he reveal any weaknesses/exploits in the structure of the Internet that we can address? If so, how do we address them? 

Ben

On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at ReedSmith.com> wrote:

> 
> All:
>  
> I have followed the Snowden revelations with interest and some diligence, but I can’t profess to know everything that has been revealed and reported on.  As a result of /1Net discussions, my interest has been piqued and I’ve been looking for the “smoking gun(s)” or “the scene of the [Internet] crime”: the explicit and specific acts by US surveillance (etc.) that were uniquely made possible by the United States’ current relationship to Internet governance, Internet infrastructure, ICANN, and/or IANA, etc.  I want to know what happened and I haven’t really been successful.
>  
> In other words, I would like to fill in the blanks in the following sentence: “Because of the United States’ unique ________________ [e.g., “relationship to”, ”control over”] ____________ [e.g., “the Root”, “ICANN”], _________________ [e.g., “the NSA”, “PRISM”, “US Cyber Command”] was able to do the following:___________________________________ [e.g., “access XYZ”, “intercept XYZ”, “read XYZ”].
>  
> Or, the corollary, “Solely due to stopping the US _____________________ and/or moving __________________, US surveillance agencies will no longer be able to__________________.”
>  
> So far, what I’ve found that’s concrete relates to the US working with private enterprises (no reason to name names here) to gain access to data.   But it appears that these “relationships” could (and probably do) happen in any country with significant private enterprises (and a governmental yen for surveillance), and it seems those “relationships” would exist in largely the same fashion even if the US had no “special” relationship to the Internet.  (Spies will be spies, after all, and IG isn’t going to stop them.)  So, this isn’t really what I’m looking for.
>  
> Of course, I’ve found a lot of higher level, abstract discussions that don’t tie back to any discrete, identifiable action that the US was able to take because of its position vis a vis the Internet.  Some of these are interesting and thought-provoking.  Then there are that say the connection between Snowden and the impetus for an IG shakeup is clear and obvious, but they don’t actually demonstrate the connection and seem to end up with more of a “guilt by association” argument.  And those that assume the connection or seem to be using Snowden as an excuse and quickly move on to next steps in shifting IG around.  There are even speculative arguments that the technology could have developed in a different way or would develop in a different way if the US/Internet relationship were different or nonexistent.  But these are also not what I’m looking for.
>  
> I am really looking for concrete technical exploits revealed by Snowden that were uniquely made possible by the way things work now with the US relationship to the Internet, and for citations to primary sources (or reliable secondary sources that quote or link to primary sources) that report/reveal those exploits.  To use a crude analogy (and with apologies to anybody who knows anything about technology) I want something like, “Because the cable company has located a mess of cables and boxes in my closet, I’m able to steal cable TV.  If they took that out of my closet, I wouldn’t get free cable anymore.  And here’s how I did it.”  I haven’t really found this yet.  What am I missing?
>  
> Some might say this is not an IG question.  I think it is (and perhaps you can indulge me if you disagree).  L’Affaire Snowden was a key driver to all that has happened since in IG.  We should know why and what are the concrete problems (if any) it showed us that we need to solve.  Though I may disagree to a greater or lesser extent, I understand the philosophical or political reasons why.  What I am keen to find out are the factual technical reasons why.
>  
> Apologies for asking such a long-winded question.  I look forward to the answers.
>  
> Greg Shatan
>  
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> 
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> * * *
> 
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> 
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

____________________
Dr. Ben Fuller, Dean
Faculty of Humanities, HIV and AIDS and Sustainable Development
International University of Managment
Windhoek, Namibia
bfuller at ium.edu.na, ben at fuller.na
http://www.ium.edu.na, http://www.fuller.na
skype: drbenfuller