In his “Stories I’d like to see” column, journalist and entrepreneur Steven Brill spotlights topics that, in his opinion, have received insufficient media attention. This article was originally published on Reuters.com.
1. Booz Allen’s liability in the government snooping leaks:
We now know that the source of last week’s leaks revealing various US government data collection and surveillance activities is a low-level employee of the giant consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, which The New York Times reported on Monday was paid $1.3 billion last year by various American intelligence agencies under multiple contracts related to data collection and analysis. (The firm’s website has a whole section under “Intelligence Community” about how Booz turns “Big Data Into Big Insights.”)
So, the obvious question is what do those contracts say about the firm’s liability if one of its employees spills its client’s secrets resulting in what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper calls “gut=wrenching” losses? Can we at least get some or all of our money back? (The company’s stock was down in Monday morning trading, perhaps in anticipation of such problems.) If not, why not?
2. Greenwald’s conflict?
Revealing Snowden’s identity was Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald’s latest in his series of scoops on US government snooping. Greenwald posted a video interview with Snowden in which the Booz Allen employee says he revealed the government’s intelligence programs to Greenwald to expose abuses of what he called “a surveillance state.”
I’d sure like to know exactly how much, if at all, Greenwald encouraged the 29-year-old Snowden to turn himself in. After all, the main beneficiary of Snowden’s confession is Greenwald — because now it’s Snowden who will likely be prosecuted while Greenwald will avoid all of the legal hassles that would have come from an investigation aimed at finding his source.
3. Look to Europe for the next fight over NSA snooping:
This paragraph in a Wall Street Journal report on Saturday summarizing the week’s revelations about the snooping programs should be a launching point for lots of stories in the coming days:
Obama administration officials stressed Friday that the NSA surveillance program focuses on foreign nationals, not Americans. But for companies like Facebook — which counts roughly 80% of its monthly users outside the U.S. and Canada — the disclosure of surveillance on foreign nationals raises its own problems.
A backlash, privacy advocates warned, may be particularly strong in Europe, where governments and citizens have been more sensitive to privacy issues.
American companies that have operations in Europe and seek to do business with, and collect data from, Europeans online cannot bring the data into the United States unless they obtain something called “Safe Harbor” status — meaning they are vetted to make sure they are protecting the data the way Europe’s tight regulations demand it be protected.
So it seems obvious that European privacy regulators are now going to demand to know how Facebook and all the others could not be committing wholesale violations of those Safe Harbor promises by allowing the NSA or FBI access to everyone’s emails, chats, phone calls, and other data. For some, the answer may be that the companies kept the data on servers in Europe, but if that’s the case then those companies clearly violated the promises they must make under Europe’s tough privacy laws, or still violated their Safe Harbor promises because they allowed the NSA or FBI to tap into the data from the US or bring it into the US.
Here’s a summary of how Safe Harbor works. Is there any way these companies won’t be accused of violating its required privacy protection self-certifications? Did these companies somehow seek and get US government protection from the likely wrath of European officials — and how is that now going to play out?
4. Obamacare’s stimulus: