November 15, 2024

How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets

The stranger responded with instructions for creating an even more secure system to protect their exchanges. Promising sensitive information, the stranger told Poitras to select long pass phrases that could withstand a brute-force attack by networked computers. “Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second,” the stranger wrote.

Before long, Poitras received an encrypted message that outlined a number of secret surveillance programs run by the government. She had heard of one of them but not the others. After describing each program, the stranger wrote some version of the phrase, “This I can prove.”

Seconds after she decrypted and read the e-mail, Poitras disconnected from the Internet and removed the message from her computer. “I thought, O.K., if this is true, my life just changed,” she told me last month. “It was staggering, what he claimed to know and be able to provide. I just knew that I had to change everything.”

Poitras remained wary of whoever it was she was communicating with. She worried especially that a government agent might be trying to trick her into disclosing information about the people she interviewed for her documentary, including Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks. “I called him out,” Poitras recalled. “I said either you have this information and you are taking huge risks or you are trying to entrap me and the people I know, or you’re crazy.”

The answers were reassuring but not definitive. Poitras did not know the stranger’s name, sex, age or employer (C.I.A.? N.S.A.? Pentagon?). In early June, she finally got the answers. Along with her reporting partner, Glenn Greenwald, a former lawyer and a columnist for The Guardian, Poitras flew to Hong Kong and met the N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, who gave them thousands of classified documents, setting off a major controversy over the extent and legality of government surveillance. Poitras was right that, among other things, her life would never be the same.

Greenwald lives and works in a house surrounded by tropical foliage in a remote area of Rio de Janeiro. He shares the home with his Brazilian partner and their 10 dogs and one cat, and the place has the feel of a low-key fraternity that has been dropped down in the jungle. The kitchen clock is off by hours, but no one notices; dishes tend to pile up in the sink; the living room contains a table and a couch and a large TV, an Xbox console and a box of poker chips and not much else. The refrigerator is not always filled with fresh vegetables. A family of monkeys occasionally raids the banana trees in the backyard and engages in shrieking battles with the dogs.

Glenn Greenwald, a writer for The Guardian, at home in Rio de Janeiro.

Mauricio Lima for The New York Times

Glenn Greenwald, a writer for The Guardian, at home in Rio de Janeiro.

Greenwald does most of his work on a shaded porch, usually dressed in a T-shirt, surfer shorts and flip-flops. Over the four days I spent there, he was in perpetual motion, speaking on the phone in Portuguese and English, rushing out the door to be interviewed in the city below, answering calls and e-mails from people seeking information about Snowden, tweeting to his 225,000 followers (and conducting intense arguments with a number of them), then sitting down to write more N.S.A. articles for The Guardian, all while pleading with his dogs to stay quiet. During one especially fever-pitched moment, he hollered, “Shut up, everyone,” but they didn’t seem to care.

Amid the chaos, Poitras, an intense-looking woman of 49, sat in a spare bedroom or at the table in the living room, working in concentrated silence in front of her multiple computers. Once in a while she would walk over to the porch to talk with Greenwald about the article he was working on, or he would sometimes stop what he was doing to look at the latest version of a new video she was editing about Snowden. They would talk intensely — Greenwald far louder and more rapid-fire than Poitras — and occasionally break out laughing at some shared joke or absurd memory. The Snowden story, they both said, was a battle they were waging together, a fight against powers of surveillance that they both believe are a threat to fundamental American liberties.

Peter Maass is an investigative reporter working on a book about surveillance and privacy.

Editor: Joel Lovell

 

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Times Co.’s Thompson to Testify in Parliament on BBC

The program started in 2008, according to a release the BBC issued last month, and was intended to convert all of the BBC’s production and archived materials to a digital format. The BBC halted the project in October 2012 to review how well it was performing.

In May, the BBC’s current director general, Tony Hall, decided to cut the program after it had accumulated about $154 million in costs.

“The D.M.I. project has wasted a huge amount of license fee payers’ money,” he said, “and I saw no reason to allow that to continue, which is why I have closed it.”

When Mr. Thompson testified before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons about the program in February 2011, British newspapers said, he described how the program had been progressing.

“When I appeared in front of the P.A.C. in 2011 to discuss D.M.I., I answered all of the questions from committee members honestly and in good faith,” Mr. Thompson said in a statement on Monday, according to The Guardian, which on Tuesday reported on Mr. Thompson’s pending appearance before Parliament. “I did so on the basis of information provided to me at the time by the BBC executives responsible for delivering the project.”

Mr. Thompson left the BBC last fall to become chief executive of the Times Company. Since then, he has been called to testify about how the BBC handled sexual abuse accusations against one of its longtime television hosts, Jimmy Savile.

While it is unclear exactly when Mr. Thompson will return to London to testify in the Digital Media Initiative matter, Eileen Murphy, a Times Company spokeswoman, said in a statement, “Mark has always been cooperative with inquiries when they arise and he fully intends to continue that practice.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/business/media/times-cos-thompson-to-testify-to-parliament-about-bbc.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bits Blog: Apple Rejects App Tracking Drone Strikes

This month, the British newspaper The Guardian ran an interactive map of American drone strikes, pinpointing the locations in Pakistan where missiles from the unmanned aerial vehicles struck suspected terrorists. The map, which was based on data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in Britain, was available through The Guardian’s app for the iPhone, as well as its Web site.

A graduate student at New York University, Josh Begley, recently took the same data on drone strikes from the same source that The Guardian used and put it into an iPhone app of his own creation that featured an interactive map. While The Guardian’s map was part of a much broader newspaper app featuring all manner of stories, the app by Mr. Begley, called Drone+, was dedicated exclusively to the drone strikes.

On Monday evening, Apple rejected Mr. Begley’s software from its App Store because, the company said, it ran afoul of Apple standards on objectionable content within apps.

How does that compute?

Information about drone strikes was used both in an article in the Guardian's app, left, and in an app created by a graduate student at New York University.Information about drone strikes was used both in an article in the Guardian’s app, left, and in an app created by a graduate student at New York University.

Mr. Begley appears to be the latest developer to fall down the rabbit hole of Apple policies that determine what can and cannot be distributed through the App Store for iPhones and iPads. Most of the time, Apple’s system for approving apps seems to work pretty smoothly, considering the huge volume of apps the company has to deal with. But when it goes awry, it can lead to some real head scratching.

In a phone interview, Mr. Begley said Drone+ had been rejected twice before by Apple’s App Store team for violations of its policies, first because the app was “not useful or entertaining enough,” according to a copy of his e-mail correspondence with Apple supplied by Mr. Begley. The developer added some features, including the ability to push alerts to users of the app whenever a new drone strike was reported. Apple later had another objection related to the placement of Google’s logo on the map within the app.

It wasn’t until this week that Apple notified Mr. Begley that Drone+ had again been rejected, this time for violating provision 16.1 of its App Store guidelines, which bans software that presents “excessively objectionable or crude content.” Drone+ did not contain any graphic images showing the aftermath of drone strikes, Mr. Begley said. It merely presented their locations on a map.

“I wanted to have a more granular sense of what drone strikes really did look like out of genuine curiosity,” Mr. Begley said, describing his motivations for creating the app.

Tom Neumayr, an Apple spokesman, confirmed that Drone+ had been rejected for violating Apple’s policy on objectionable content, but he declined to comment further on the decision. Wired News first reported news of Mr. Begley’s saga on  Thursday.

Apple caused a stir in 2010 over its decision to reject an app featuring a satirical political cartoon because of a policy against ridiculing public figures. Apple later accepted the app. The incident created concerns about Apple’s gatekeeper role as more media is distributed through its smartphones and tablet devices.

The case of Drone+ is especially puzzling, though, because the material Apple deemed objectionable from Mr. Begley was nearly identical to the material available through The Guardian’s iPhone app. It’s unclear whether Apple is treating the two parties differently because The Guardian is a well-known media organization and Mr. Begley is not, or whether the problem is that Mr. Begley chose to focus his app only on drone strikes.

Article source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-tracking-drone-strikes/?partner=rss&emc=rss