Mediaboss Marketing

Some 10 years after he flew to Hong Kong to meet Edward Snowden with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, The Guardians Pulitzer Prize winner, Ewen MacAskill, talks to Computer Weekly about the Snowden files.

MacAskill was speaking after Computer Weekly revealed the first new facts to emerge from the Snowden files since the archive first made headlines in 2013.

The three new revelations have surfaced for the first time only thanks to a highly technical publication: a doctoral thesis authored by US investigative journalist and postdoctoral researcher Jacob Appelbaum, as part of his degree in applied cryptography from the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands.

Their publication by Computer Weekly has revived the debate as to why the entire Snowden archive has never been published, considering that even after a decade the three revelations remain indisputably in the public interest, and it is reasonable to assume there are many others like them.

MacAskill, who shared the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras for their journalistic work on the Snowden files, retired from The Guardian in 2018. He told Computer Weekly that:

The Snowden archive allows exposing and documenting the rise of the mass-surveillance state, a serious threat to democracy. Have the journalists and media with access to the full archive done everything they can to expose this threat? That is the crux of the matter, because even in a democracy bad people can be elected who could use such unprecedented Orwellian control to crush any opposition. Legendary Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said: As Snowden has put it, were a turnkey tyranny: in other words, turn a switch, and we could be a total police state.

MacAskill tells Computer Weekly: That is what we did. With hindsight, we could have done some things better. But those stories reverberated around the world and still do today. Snowden wanted to alert the world to the scale of mass surveillance and loss of privacy, and he succeeded in that. He believes that those living in democracies have a right to know.

Although the NSA and GCHQ have since developed better tools and surveillance is more intrusive than ever, Snowden has increased public awareness of the threat posed by loss of privacy, he said. Much of the public may be apathetic, but at least they know.

MacAskill said he only worked on a small selection of documents from the archive, when he met the former CIA whistleblower in Hong Kong. There, Snowden gave him a memory stick with tens of thousands of documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) and its British partner, GCHQ, which formed the basis of the subsequent reporting by The Guardian. The Guardian shared the documents with The New York Times and ProPublica, and were to work alongside journalists from those organisations.

The Guardians journalist did not recall seeing the three revelations published by Computer Weekly, summarised below:

Given the sheer volume of documents, it is possible I and reporters from The Guardian, The New York Times and ProPublica missed them or were more interested in other documents. Or it could be that the documents you refer to are in the main archive, which, as far as I know, only Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald had access to.

He said he worked on only a small selection of documents from the archive while in Hong Kong, though these contained the stories that were to have the most impact, such as the mass collection of US phone records and the revelations of the PRISM programme.

Why was only 1% of the documents published, in the end? The documents are not like the WikiLeaks ones from the US state department, which were written by diplomats and, for the most part, easily understandable, said Ewen MacAskill.

The Snowden files are largely technical, with lots of codewords and jargon that is hard to decipher. There are pages and pages of that which the public would not be interested in. There are also documents that relate to operational matters. Snowden said from the start he wanted us to report on issues related to mass surveillance, not operational matters. So we stuck to that.

The Guardians Pulitzer Prize winner said the main reason why only a small percentage was published was due to diminishing interest. The Guardian published lots of stories from the Snowden files for months and months after Hong Kong, he said. But it reached a point where each story attracted smaller and smaller readerships, as interest dwindled.

The feeling at The Guardian and, I assume, at The New York Times and ProPublica was they had reported on the biggest stories in the documents and there was diminishing interest in publishing more.

The feeling, too, at The Guardian was that by continuing to report on stories that attracted less interest, we were in danger of undermining the impact of the initial ones. The Intercept, which had access to more documents than us, continued publishing for a while after us.

The three unpublished revelations revealed by Computer Weekly, thanks to Jacob Appelbaums doctoral thesis, confirm it is reasonable to assume the archive still contains important information in the public interest. According to Appelbaum: Even if the privacy-violating intercepts are excluded from publication, there is an entire parallel history in that archive.

We asked McAskill why The New York Times hasnt published them in a decade. This is a complicated issue, he said. Although the files are in the New York Times office, The Guardian retains responsibility for them. Should more journalists be given access to the Snowden documents? In that case, who should decide which journalists get to see them? Should the whole lot just be published for everyone to see? Snowden did not want the documents to be published en masse.

The bottom line is that Snowden is facing charges under the Espionage Act. If he was ever to return to the US and face trial, the documents could be used against him. All journalists have a duty to protect source material. How best to do that? How long would The New York Times be willing to store them? Where else could they be stored? Should the documents be destroyed?

MacAskill acknowledges that there is, at the very least, a case to be made for keeping them for future generations of historians.

Is there a university that would be prepared to take them? he suggested. But that would be expensive, and could they ensure they would be secure?

MacAskill left the staff of The Guardian in 2018. I dont know what discussions, if any, have taken place between The Guardian and The New York Times since then, he said.

See the original post here:
Why only 1% of the Snowden Archive will ever be published - ComputerWeekly.com

Last month, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak released his Plan for Motorists, which reads like it was written by a car. In it, Sunak proposes to rid his polluted, congested nation of so-called anti-motorist measures such as 20 mph speed limits, dedicated bus lanes, and automated camera enforcement. Sunaks party has also bought into conspiracy theories that 15-minute cities, built so everything you need is within a 15-minute walk or bike ride away, are prisons for car owners.

In New York, politicians of all stripes are ratcheting up anger over the so-called (and eponymous podcast title) war on cars. Council Member Bob Holden (D-Queens) decried the arrival of Citi Bike in central Queens as a salvo from the fanatical anti-car movement, and Council Member Vickie Paladino (R-Queens) uses her office Twitter account to blast congestion pricing and even the transition to electric vehicles amount as Democrat-led cash grabs. Meanwhile, companies like Broadway Stages are flexing their muscle to get the mayors chief adviser who boasts that she hasnt ridden the subway in decades to reverse long-established safe street redesign protocols.

Its worth reminding oneself that this is the response to measures that aim to: a) make roadways safer; b) delay the worst effects of climate change; and c) make it easier to simply breathe outside. Such proposals barely ask Americans to make even a small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things, but they do seek to encourage people to drive a little bit less, to drive a less-polluting vehicle, or to try (keyword: try) to give people the option of not driving at all.

In return, people who even mildly question the primacy of the automobile are met with a vitriolic backlash, one whose vehemence shows how deeply people associate themselves with the car. Initiatives that use less than 1 percent of a citys (mostly free) parking spots for something that isnt the private storage of vehicles on public space like bikeshare, outdoor dining or even getting disgusting trash out of the way of pedestrians are labeled a war on our way of life. (Or as conservative commentator Ann Coulter put it: $0 for the Wall. $5 Billion for bike paths.)

This car culture war will likely get worse, as Sunak, Holden, Paladino and their ilk show. Cities cant deliver on their climate goals without getting cars off the road. Cities cannot succeed in solving Americas road-death crisis without calming streets, reducing car speeds and creating more space for cyclists and pedestrians.

Meanwhile, Millennials and Gen Zers, who will soon dominate policy-making circles, want walkable communities and lives without cars. Thats good news for the future, but sets up a clash with the naysayers who still have a grip on power (and community boards).

But the revanchists should be aware: their culture war risks backfiring. The abortion fight is a telling example. Conservatives who pushed to repeal Roe v. Wade didnt expect people to respond by voting to preserve abortion rights, even in deep-red states. This was always one of Donald Trumps great flaws: by making everything political, you end up energizing a lot more people (who are usually apolitical) against you.

The same can be said about cars. Theres a clear demand for safer streets and better mobility options: bike lanes lead to more cycling, while pedestrianization leads to more walking (and spending). Polls often capture a wide swath of the population that would bike or walk more if conditions were safer or more pleasant. If opponents seek battles to prevent the changes we need, they shouldnt be surprised when people of all backgrounds show up in support.

Change, of course, is difficult and cars are potentially poised for the loudest outcry. You might not know someone who had to get an abortion, whose sexual identity or orientation are under attack, or whose school district banned fact-based history instruction, but its almost an absolute certainty that youve been in a car. In a recent interview, Sunak said exactly that when dodging questions about a major high-speed rail project that he cancelled: The vast majority of the journeys that people make are in their cars, he said, suggesting that trying to change that is futile and politically suicidal.

Weve been here before. (Time and time again.) In 1972, an angry taxi driver in Amsterdam was captured on video ripping down barricades for a kids-only street and exerting his right to drive anywhere at any time. Residents persevered, pushing the Dutch capital to become a hallmark of people-friendly streets (with still plenty of cars to go around) as the rest of the world gobbled up more space for the internal combustion engine.

In many ways, countless cities today are finally arriving at their 1972 Amsterdam moment, stuck between a gurgling culture war that threatens to enrage and enlist countless drivers by convincing them that their parking is more important than the Earth or a childs survival and a movement to reclaim space for everyone else.

Local leaders will just have to decide whether thats actually an equal fight.

Read more from the original source:
Hey, Bike Haters, You Will Lose the Culture War You're Starting ... - Streetsblog USA

Amy Torres, Executive Director of New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, joins Steve Adubato for a conversation about the ending of Title 42, our nations asylum crisis, and the need for immigration reform. Recorded 6/20/23

Steve Adubato asks Amy Torres about the state of Title 42 and immigration enforcement. Torres responds, I think its really important to understand that colloquially we use words like refugee and asylum seeker to describe people who are fleeing for their own safety, trying to protect themselves, trying to protect their loved ones. Its important to understand that in U.S immigration policy these words refugee, asylee, theyre very restrictive coded definitions that change over time and we saw that with title 42 right. There was a real restriction on the internationally recognized right to asylum, there were barriers put in place that made it very difficult to file for asylum. We saw it again when title 42 ended and the Biden Administration proposed their own new restrictions that in many ways went further than title 42, to make it even more difficult to file for asylum, to come to the U.S and stay here and seek safety. I think weve heard a lot over the last few months about a border crisis, or a migration crisis. Really what were facing in the United States is a policy crisis. We have a deeply broken immigration system that means that its more difficult than ever to try to come to the United States, and even more difficult once youre here to be able to legally stay here.

(Visited 91 times, 2 visits today)

Click here for the full Insider Index

See the rest here:
Examining The State of Immigration Reform and the Nation's Asylum ... - InsiderNJ

It is difficult to find an issue that more exemplifies the dysfunction of American government today than immigration.

In the past year, more than a million people have entered the United States through the southern border, overflowing shelters and straining public services. Most of the newcomers claim asylum, a status that allows them to be in the country legally but leaves them in limbo. They often must wait years for their cases to be heard, and it can be a lengthy process to obtain legal permission to work.

This nation has long drawn strength from immigration, and providing asylum is an important expression of Americas national values. But Congress has failed to provide the necessary resources to welcome those who are eligible and to turn away those who are not. Instead, overwhelmed immigration officials allow nearly everyone to stay temporarily, imposing enormous short-term costs on states and cities that the federal government hasnt done enough to mitigate.

Vice President Kamala Harris and others have correctly identified corruption and instability in Central and South America as reasons many people continue to flee their homes, and the United States should do what it can to help countries with these challenges. But that is not an answer to the disruption that this recent wave of people is causing in American communities right now.

The federal governments negligence is fueling anger against immigrants and stoking divisions. The question is whether Congress, mired in dysfunction, can stir itself to enact sensible changes so the nation can reap the benefits of immigration.

Neither party has come up with a solution that is both practical and compassionate. Many in the Republican Party want to return to the Trump-era policies of strictly curtailing refugee and asylum admissions and requiring many people to stay in Mexico while their asylum cases are heard. Some Republicans still embrace the fiction that building a huge wall would solve everything, despite abundant evidence that it would be ineffective in stopping people from coming to the border. On Thursday the Biden administration moved to expand that wall as well.

Some lawmakers on the left have tried to ignore or downplay the extent of this challenge. Illegal border crossings by families, while they are a small portion of the total number of people entering the United States, are rising. The consequences of allowing huge numbers of asylum seekers to enter without sufficiently providing for them are real. The result is not only relentless pressure on the immigration system at the border and elsewhere but also a devastating failure to protect people from smugglers, who have made sneaking people into the United States a big business, or from exploitation after they arrive.

Congress can raise the level of legal immigration by increasing the quotas for employment visas and other categories that allow people to come to the United States legally and have the chance to become permanent residents and then citizens. Those targets have been too low for too long, particularly for people who can fill gaps in the labor market. In July there were more than two million open positions, for example, in construction, hospitality and retail, and the current system keeps out many engineers, computer programmers and scientists. To change that, Congress would need to act and to establish new quotas that more accurately reflect the level of immigration that Americans want and can reasonably accept.

The country has already seen the consequences of keeping legal immigration artificially low. The Trump administration, even before the pandemic, dramatically decreased its annual quota for refugees and made many other forms of legal immigration much harder to get. Even worse, the administration removed children from their parents in a cruel attempt at deterrence. That inhumane policy also didnt work, as people continued to travel north to present themselves at the border to make asylum claims. Those numbers rose every year of Mr. Trumps presidency, with the exception of 2020, and the result was chaos.

While the Biden administration has mostly ended the policy of family separation, it has been slow in resettling refugees, has not pushed for raising quotas for most other forms of legal immigration and has offered no sustainable, long-term solution to the challenge of illegal immigration. Last year the administration ended the remain-in-Mexico policy and tried to make it easier for people to apply for asylum from their home countries. Nevertheless, the number of asylum seekers has continued to soar. The asylum program was never meant to be a vehicle for large-scale immigration and still needs an overhaul, as this board has argued.

Then there is the question of how to support those who have already arrived in the United States. Its also difficult to find political heroes here.

There were the cynical tactics deployed by Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and others who decided to transport thousands of immigrants to Democratic-led cities and states to see if they would maintain their longstanding posture of openness in the face of a sudden surge of newcomers. As despicable as this ploy was, it worked.

More than 145,000 people have traveled to New York State from the southern border over the past year, and the scale of this latest round of immigration has tested New Yorks fortitude and its historic embrace of newcomers; as of 2021, about one in three people in New York City was born in another country.

The current crisis has shown how difficult it can be to absorb waves of new people without adequate processes or the resources to back them up. Many of the new immigrants have come without family or other community ties, and the surge of people without a place to stay has strained the citys shelter system, when the New York region already was struggling with a shortage of affordable housing. A right-to-shelter mandate dating back four decades requires the city to provide a bed to anyone who needs one, and of the more than 115,200 people in city shelters, about half are asylum seekers.

Mayor Eric Adams has responded to this challenge with increasingly sharp, ominous statements. This issue will destroy New York City, he said on Sept. 6. Every community in this city is going to be impacted, he continued. The city we knew, were about to lose. Demonizing populations of people is dangerous and will not help the city respond to their needs, even if the mayor is right to raise the alarm and insist on more federal aid.

President Biden announced on Sept. 20 that his administration will extend temporary work permits to nearly half a million Venezuelans, a concession to intense pressure from Mr. Adams and other state and city leaders from his own party who find their communities overwhelmed.

That will help some businesses that are desperate for more workers. But Mr. Bidens reluctance is understandable; expanding work authorization without addressing Americas broken immigration system will do little to deter people from trying to cross the U.S. border unlawfully or to seek asylum, and it gives Congress a pass.

Some Republican leaders have stepped up to offer help. Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah and Gov. Eric Holcomb of Indiana wrote an essay in The Washington Post in February offering to sponsor immigrants, citing more than 300,000 job vacancies between the two states. In meaningful ways, every U.S. state shares a border with the rest of the world, and all of them need investment, markets and workers from abroad, they wrote. That border can remain an embarrassment, or it can become a big asset to us once again.

For that to happen, leaders in Congress will have to do their part. Its been a decade since Congress has seriously considered immigration reform. Both parties have missed opportunities to do so, the Democrats most recently at the end of 2022. The party had a narrow majority in Congress but failed to pursue a compromise bill that would have increased funding for border security as well as expanding capacity to hear and decide asylum claims quickly. The future of DACA, a program for those who were brought to the United States as children, is also in doubt, despite its broad public support.

The White House is limited in the actions it can take; Mr. Biden may have exhausted what he can do through his executive authority. Until Congress decides to take meaningful action, America will continue to pay a price.

Source photograph by Busara, via Getty Images.

See more here:
Opinion | The Cost of Inaction on Immigration - The New York Times

Periodically, American presidents have tried to release pressure from these systems by granting amnesty or temporary protection from deportation to large groups of migrants, as Biden recently did for Venezuelans. But these are short-term Band-Aids that do little to affect the ongoing causes of illegal immigration and still leave millions of workers vulnerable to abuse.

Congress, for its part, has proved itself incapable of passing the kind of legislation necessary to recalibrate the economic incentives. Though five major immigration reform bills have been brought to a vote since 2006, none of them made it through both the House and the Senate. To be fair, perhaps no single legislative act or executive order could ever change these dynamics. But some people have suggested targeted measures that could make unauthorized migration less chaotic, less exploitative and less profitable to unscrupulous actors.

The National Association of Immigration Judges has made a strong case for increasing the funding for immigration courts. There are now more than 2.5 million cases pending in these courts, and their average processing time is four years. To handle this backlog, the nation has fewer than 700 immigration-court judges. According to Mimi Tsankov, president of the association, this disparity between manpower and caseload is the primary reason many immigration cases, especially complex asylum cases, take years to resolve. To speed processing times, Tsankov explained, the courts need more judges but also more interpreters, legal assistants and law clerks. Improved efficiency would benefit those who merit asylum. Others say that it would also decrease the incentive to submit frivolous asylum claims in order to reside legally in the United States while waiting for an application to be denied.

Among academics, another idea keeps resurfacing: a deadline for deportations. Most crimes in America have a statute of limitations, Mae Ngai, a professor of history at Columbia University, noted in an opinion column for The Washington Post. The statute of limitations for noncapital terrorism offenses, for example, is eight years. Before the 1924 Immigration Act, Ngai wrote in her book about the history of immigration policy, the statute of limitations for deportations was at most five years. Returning to this general principle, at least for migrants who have no significant criminal record, would allow ICE officers and immigration judges to focus on the recent influx of unauthorized migrants. A deadline could also improve labor conditions for all Americans because, as Ngai wrote, it would go a long way toward stemming the accretion of a caste population that is easily exploitable and lives forever outside the polity.

One of the most curious aspects of American immigration politics is that Congress tends to invest heavily in immigration enforcement but not in the enforcement of labor laws that could dissuade businesses from exploiting unauthorized workers in the first place. Congress more than doubled the annual budgets for ICE and C.B.P. from 2006 to 2021. At the same time, it kept the budgets for the three federal agencies most responsible for preventing workplace abuse OSHA, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board essentially flat. There are now only 750 Department of Labor investigators responsible for the countrys 11 million workplaces. As absurd as it sounds, the enforcement of labor standards is a very controversial thing to do in this country, David Weil, the former administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, told me earlier this year. The laws needed to protect the interests of workers are already on the books, he said; the Department of Labor just needs funding adequate to enforce them.

See more here:
Why Can't We Stop Unauthorized Immigration? Because It Works. - The New York Times