Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1029

How Yahoo Fought PRISM — and Lost

Yahoo, one of the companies named as part of the NSA's PRISM data collection program, didn't go quietly, according to a New York Times scoop posted late Thursday. The company was behind a 2008 court challenge to fight a court order requiring the company to give them data without a warrant, which they lost. That, according to the Times, ushered the company into PRISM. 

The court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or FISC, has been in the news a lot recently for, among other things, authorizing the phone data tracking of millions of Americans. The Yahoo case was previously known as an unsuccessful challenge to the NSA's surveillance powers, but until now, no one knew the name of the company behind it. Here's how that argument went down, according to the Times: 

"The company argued that the order violated its users’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court called that worry “overblown.”

“Notwithstanding the parade of horribles trotted out by the petitioner, it has presented no evidence of any actual harm, any egregious risk of error, or any broad potential for abuse,” the court said, adding that the government’s “efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts.”

The court left the company with two options, according to the paper: "Hand over the data or break the law." And their 2008 case, because it was made partially public, has had an effect on other Silicon Valley companies facing similar requests: "it puts them on notice that they need not even try to test their legality." 

Yahoo didn't comment for the Times's story, so it looks like their information came from two anonymous sources. Along with Yahoo, the article also notes that Google, Twitter, a handful of smaller companies, and a librarians' group have also fought similar orders based on elements of the National Security Letters. Yahoo joined PRISM in 2008, according to the Guardian's report on the program. 

While the leak is probably welcome news for the company, one of several weathering a rough PR week after being implicated in the PRISM data collection program, it doesn't really look like it'll do much to ease the concerns of those who worry about the privacy of the data they've handed over to the company in the first place. 

       

The Hawks Are Out on the Syrian 'Red Line'

Even with a total death toll of over 93,000 in Syria, it looks like what could be the turning point in U.S. intervention in Syria will come down to the deaths of just 150. On Thursday, the Obama administration announced that, with "high confidence," U.S. intelligence officials believe the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. Those chemical attacks, they estimate, have killed 100 or 150 in the years-long conflict. A statement from US Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes notes that chemical weapons are Obama's stated "red line" for Syria, adding, "The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has." But initial reactions to the report, which seems to be the culmination of a slow build of reports on chemical weapons in the conflict, show that many lawmakers are basically sticking to their long-held positions on intervention in the Syiran conflict. 

Notably, President Obama's response to the chemical weapons news has not, publicly, been an all-out call to intervention (UPDATE: but, according to multiple media reports, the administration is planning to arm some rebel groups). While the language from the White House statement out Thursday evening is strong, it falls short of a decision to provide lethal aid to Syrian rebels. That's understandable, given that the strong "red line" statement he laid out back in August was quite possibly an unplanned remark.This puts pretty much any administration response other than intervention up against a practiced call by interventionists to arm the Syrian rebels.  

As we noted before, there was at least one big position switch among Congressmen immediately available: House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Rep. Ed Royce, is now for arming the rebels, citing the red line. But many of the other instastatements are from committed hawks. 

The most visible hawk performance after the news broke is probably that of John McCain, who previously visited Syria after sneaking across the border to meet with rebels. On the Senate floor, McCain even appeared to jump the gun by announcing that "we will be assisting the Syrian rebels in Syria by providing them with weapons and other assistance." It looks like McCain jumped the gun on something the White House hasn't officially announced (see: the Wall Street Journal). Rhodes's statement merely said we'd provide ""military support" to moderate rebels, which doesn't necessarily include "lethal aid," i.e. weapons. Later, McCain went on CNN to explain further: 

"I had been told that, as i mentioned on the floor, that military assistance, but they need a lot more than a military assistance, we need to establish the no fly zone...the President of the United States needs to go to the American people and tell them why we are going to take action now I am advocating...No we don't want boots on ground, and yes we should be able to establish a no fly zone...Look what the consequences of doing nothing are. They are catastrophic in a regional conflict." 

He continued to advocate specifically for sending "anti tank" and "anti air" weapons to Syrian rebels. McCain and Senator Lindsay Graham released a joint statement after the news broke laying out their support for a "no-fly zone." 

Senator Saxby Chambliss also went on CNN this evening to support arming the rebels: 

"The United States doesn't need to be the worlds policeman but the United States does need to step in when tyrants like this really in a very militant way kill innocent people on a regular and wholesale basis," he said, adding that he would support a "no-fly zone," too. 

Other legislators echoed this claim: 

In using chemical weapons, #Assad committed a war crime against his own people. What more does the civilized world need? #FreeSyria (more)

— Eliot Engel (@RepEliotEngel) June 13, 2013

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), Ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee: "Official confirmation of Assad’s use of chemical weapons heightens the urgency for the U.S. to provide the kind of decisive support, including arms and training, to vetted Syrian opposition groups as soon as possible."  

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon gave a statement on the House floor chastising Obama for not jumping to action at the first indication that maybe the red line had been crossed: "The President has stated that a red line has been crossed.  But I would observe that red lines are meaningless unless they are backed by action," he said, adding, "I am... deeply concerned about our ability to honor and uphold red-lines. Our military readiness and our ability to respond is degraded today." 

Majority Leader Eric Cantor picked up on the call for Obama to "explain" himself. While the Republican's statement doesn't specifically advocate for arming the rebels, it argues for increased American intervention: 

"I have heard loudly and clearly from our closest partners in the region who are desperate for American leadership...My colleagues and I stand ready to work with the President. I call on President Obama to explain to the Congress and the American people his plan to bring this conflict to an end in a manner that protects the interests of the United States and our allies."

Another early responder from Congress, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, held firm to his reservations on arming Syrian rebels.Arguing that it wouldn't be as easy to keep the weapons from falling into undesirable hands as some are saying, Murphy urged the White House to increase "our humanitarian assistance to refugee populations and opposition groups" instead.

Was on the Senate floor to hear Obama spokesman John McCain announce military aid for Syrian rebels. #strangeworld

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2013

While it's way too early to tell how the divisions on Syrian intervention will shake out, Murphy and other non-interventionists are so far harder to find. Even Canada, apparently, is "consulting with our allies on a response" to the U.S. intelligence report. 

       

You Can Still Protest the Supreme Court

Have faith, Supreme Court rabble-rousers: the highest bench in the United States remains open to protests, speeches, demonstrations, and vigils. You may have to follow a few ground rules, though. In fact, you pretty much have to follow the same rules that were in place before. 

On Thursday, Supreme Court officials announced a revised set of rules barring demonstrations — including picketing, speeches, and other kinds of organized gatherings — from taking place on the 252-foot wide marble plaza that separates the Court Building from First Street NE, a north-south road in Washington, D.C. The new set of rules replace an older, more broad, ban on protests in the plaza and Supreme Court grounds that was declared unconstitutional by Washington's U.S. District Court on Wednesday. 

The old rules, for the purposes of comparison, made it illegal to "parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages" at the Supreme Court's building or grounds. Also banned was the display of a "flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement." 

The new rules are more specific. They ban "demonstrations" from the plaza, which are defined as "demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers." But the regulation clarifies that "casual use" of the grounds, particularly of the kind that isn't likely to attract a crowd, is allowed. "This regulation does not apply on the perimeter sidewalks on the Supreme Court grounds," the regulation concludes. In other words, several generations of agitators have staged protests and processions concerning contentious Supreme Court opinions on the sidewalks surrounding the plaza, and it looks like that tradition will continue. 

The decision prompting the rule change stems from a lawsuit filed by Harold Hodge, Jr., who was arrested by Metropolitan police in 2011 for wearing a sign that criticized police officers' treatment of racial minorities. And while it's not clear whether the new rules would have also prompted Hodge's arrest, they are clearly an attempt to address it, even though they seemingly do nothing to answer Hodge's original claim: that he has a right to protest on government property. For one thing, the District Court ruling would have effectively lifted the ban on plaza demonstrations, but not in the Supreme Court building itself. And while the court's ruling objected to the old regulation's "absolute prohibition on expressive activity," the decision is also concerned with just how broadly it could be taken: under the old rules,"students wearing t-shirts with the name of their school," for example, were arguably breaking the law, too, the decision argued. 

[image error]

 

The timing here isn't surprising: these directives appear at a moment primed for Supreme Court controversy. Within weeks, potentially days, the court's nine Justices will deliver their long-awaited opinions on cases pertaining to the constitutionality of gay marriage, affirmative action, and certain parts of the Voting Rights Act — all of which continue to divide Americans along fairly hard lines. Those on both sides of each issue will have plenty of room — and a lot of legal backing — to say what they mean, as loudly as possible. Just, as always, from the sidewalk. 

       

Ethan Hawke Is Macbeth

Today in show business news: Ethan Hawke lands one of the biggest roles, Angelina Jolie is casting her next movie, and Wes Bentley's comeback continues.

Lincoln Center has announced that Ethan Hawke, one time video store Hamlet, will play the title character in the Scottish play. Yes, he'll be playing George Scottish Play. No, sorry, silly theater superstition. He's playing Macbeth in Macbeth, the great gloomy and doomy Shakespeare tragedy about ambition and guilt. No word yet on who will play his Lady Macbeth, which will in some ways determine how he plays the character, but no matter who it is and how Hawke does it, this is a big role for him. Playing Macbeth on Broadway, at Lincoln Center no less. Would we ever have dreamed that the dreamy, T-shirted slacker from Reality Bites would someday come this far? I can't imagine we would. [Playbill]

Angelina Jolie is hard at work casting her next directorial effort, an adaptation of the nonfiction WWII survival story Unbroken. She's looking for a young guy to play the lead, a soldier named Louis Zamperini who endured both a plane crash and a Japanese POW camp and is still alive today. It seems she's got three fellows in mind at the moment. There's Alexander Dreymon, who I've never heard of and maybe     

Look at the Almost-Derecho That Almost Ate DC

There was a big storm set to attack the East Coast heading into this weekend, and it hit Washington, D.C. — and hit hard — until it didn't. By Thursday evening the ominous impressionist-grey skies over the nation's capital had turned yesterday's-news blue, leaving behind only photo evidence and a windswept, powerless streak of a so-called "derecho" that never quite was. The derecho, as this special storm system is called, was expected to dump a bunch of rain up and down the Eastern seaboard. Unlike a regular rainstorm, there's a lot more wind involved in this thing, as a useful Mother Jones post explains: "In order for a weather event to be classified as a derecho, the wind damage zone must extend more than 240 miles and include wind gusts of at least 58 miles per hour" — which, yeesh, sounds very blustery. Except the winds reached up to 68 miles per hour, according to the Washington Post, which is a lot, just not quite a derecho. But a tornado reported in Maryland has taken out power for some 60,000 area residents. From Twitter freak-outs to, well, the social-media all-clear, it appears the most dramatic part of the storm passed DC in the late afternoon, whipping its way elsewhere but leaving some dramatic images — and Vines!

Here's a before-and-after from National Journal's Brian Fung:

[image error]

The calm before the storm at the Washington Monument and White House:

[image error]

The Library of Congress looking like its about to get swallowed up:

[image error]

This panorama from Foster Designs of Alexandria is insane: 

[image error]

Here's a brave soul driving during the tornado warning:

[image error]

And here's a Vine of the storm and winds in action — pretty intense:

       

A New 'Salinger' Trailer Hints at Big Revelations

We expect some big revelations from Shane Salerno's Salinger documentary. A new trailer for the film doesn't quite tell us what those are, but with a focus on topics like the mystery of why Salinger stopped publishing, his time in World War II, and his private relationships, it does portend big things. Talking heads range from some seemingly random inclusions, like Danny DeVito, to those that make more sense like former-lover Joyce Maynard. 

The documentary has been in the works for nine years, and Michael Cieply reported in the New York Times back in May that there have been questions about how to market it, even for master-marketer Harvey Weinstein. "Moviegoers will be kept intentionally in the dark about what new information Mr. Salerno might have about the reclusive writer’s life — Mr. Salinger’s son, Matthew, challenges the notion that anyone close to his father in recent decades cooperated — and the Weinstein Company will have to strike a delicate balance in its marketing," Cieply wrote

Ultimately, the whole trailer, with its dramatic music and portentous claims, comes off almost like The Da Vinci Code of Salinger. It may be heavy handed, but we're left wanting to know what Salerno knows. 

       

The New York Times Giveth to Anthony Weiner, and the Times Taketh Away

Weeks after The New York Times Magazine helped Anthony Weiner launch his comeback campaign, its ink-and-paper sibling has fired a big shot into the side of it. And its not the same bombshell everyone is waiting for. 

In the first of a series of profiles of the candidates in New York City's mayoral race, the paper examined Weiner's congressional record and interviewed dozens of old colleagues to paint a portrait of a passionate, attention-seeking, but mostly unaccomplished lawmaker. It's a long story, but just a handful of pullquotes will give you the gist of the story:

"In 12 ½ years in Congress, he sponsored and wrote only one bill that he steered to enactment: a measure pushed by a family friend who gave his campaigns tens of thousands of dollars in donations."

"a lawmaker with little patience for making laws and a single-minded focus on generating attention so he could run for mayor of New York."

"a go-it-alone politician whose legislative record was thin and whose restlessness could spill into recklessness"

"unwillingness to be a team player did compromise his ability to be an effective congressman

There's also a few Miranda Priestly-style "horror" stories from former aides that imply Weiner can be a bit of diva: Barking directions to his drivers while riding in the car; throwing salads and phones against the wall in anger; and ordering staffers to call air traffic control towers in attempts to get his planes off the ground faster (so he could get back home to make more public appearances.)

The underlying message is pretty plainly stated: Weiner is an attention hog who quickly pounces on issues that will get him in front of cameras, but then just as quickly abandons them out of frustration or impatience. He's described (in a compliment!) as a “pothole congressman" who is great at getting small favors done for his district, but uninterested in the heavy lifting of serious legislative work. And one who is sometimes unwilling to return favors when asked.

It will be up to New York voters to decide if maybe that's what they want from a Mayor. Weiner himself admits to his impatience, but says "It is just a false choice... to believe that the only way to get anything done is to sit with a law book in front of you and thick glasses." The city's current mayor would probably agree that sometimes its getting the little things done that counts.

But the other unspoken subplot of this lastest profile is that it not the Times profile that was hinted at earlier this week, when the paper's website inadvertently published (and then withdrew) a seemingly salacious story about Weiner's old sexting scandal. The world only got snippets of that article before it vanished, but the lines that we got aren't included in today's piece, which also has a different author and headline. No one knows what the fate of that story is or if we'll ever see it, but clearly the Times has another shoe it is prepared to drop. It remains to be seen if it will land on Weiner's head.

       

Inspector of Philadelphia Building that Collapsed Committed Suicide

The man responsible for inspecting the Philadelphia construction site where a building collapse killed six people last week, reportedly committed suicide yesterday. According to NBC Philadelphia, the unidentified man shot himself inside a pickup truck near his home in the Philly neighborhood of Roxborough. Police sources said he had inspected the Market Street building several times in the last few months, as it was in the process of being torn down and had declared the construction site safe, even after receiving a complaint about conditions at the building in May. 

One week ago, the outer walls of the building unexpectedly collapsed, destroying a Salvation Army Thrift Store located next door, and killing six people inside. Thirteen others were buried under the rubble and later rescued.

The construction worker who was operating a large excavation machine at site was arrested last weekend and charged with involuntary manslaughter for his actions before the collapse. Kane Robert has a long history of drug arrests and convictions, and was found to have marijuana and prescription drugs in his system just hours after the collapse. He is still being held in jail on more than $1 million bail. There is no word on if the inspector was also facing an investigation or criminal charges.

       

The NSA Director Behind the Data Tracking Headlines

NSA director General Keith Alexander spent some time explaining the necessity of the NSA's surveillance programs on Wednesday. And while the director's answers at to the assembled lawmakers were low on specifics, it seemed to boil down to two implied words: trust me.

"I would rather take a public beating, and let people think I'm hiding something, than jeopardize the security of this country," Alexander told a group of somewhat testy legislators at a hearing that wasn't intended to address the NSA leaks. He did, as we noted earlier, confirm some details, for instance, that NSA phone data records are cleared every five years. He also said that "dozens of terrorist events" have been prevented with the data tracking programs, but didn't name specifics. 

So, don't know much about Alexander? You're not alone. Fortunately, Wired posted its extremely well timed new cover story, by NSA chronicler James Bamford, about the director Wednesday night, which frames the NSA story within his seemingly never-ending quest to gain more and more reach into the world's data flow: 

"In his telling, the threat is so mind-bogglingly huge that the nation has little option but to eventually put the entire civilian Internet under his protection, requiring tweets and emails to pass through his filters, and putting the kill switch under the government’s forefinger. “What we see is an increasing level of activity on the networks,” he said at a recent security conference in Canada. “I am concerned that this is going to break a threshold where the private sector can no longer handle it and the government is going to have to step in.”

The piece even contains a well-done, yet obligatory damnation by physical description: 

"He may be a four-star Army general, but Alexander more closely resembles a head librarian than George Patton. His face is anemic, his lips a neutral horizontal line. Bald halfway back, he has hair the color of strong tea that turns gray on the sides, where it is cut close to the skin, more schoolboy than boot camp. For a time he wore large rimless glasses that seemed to swallow his eyes. Some combat types had a derisive nickname for him: Alexander the Geek." 

Alexander will be before the Intelligence Committee again tomorrow, this time specifically to address the NSA leaks. We'll have to wait and see what information the NSA will drop next in its defense of the program. Meanwhile, the New York Times had some interesting details late Wednesday on what's next for the agency's recovery from the past week. They note that the agency will conduct a four-month review of the programs, to determine both a "cost-benefit analysis," and to look at how potential terrorists change their online behavior based on the intelligence leak. 

       

Steven Spielberg, Struggling Filmmaker

Of all the people to sound the alarm on the decline and fall of the film industry, Steven Spielberg might seem like an improbable choice. But the director, speaking with George Lucas at a ceremony celebrating the opening of a new building at University of Southern California's film school, said that an "implosion" of his industry is inevitable. 

Case in point, for him: Lincoln, which was a commercial and critical success, was apparently almost an HBO exclusive. "This close -- ask HBO -- this close," he said in response to Lucas's comment that "eventually the Lincolns will go away and they're going to be on television." Spielberg, he said, only got the film into theaters in the first place because he basically owns his own infrastructure. 

As documented by the Hollywood Reporter, Lucas added, "You're talking about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas can't get their movie into a theater." 

Spielberg's advice for the aspiring USC filmmakers was, well, straight out of a disaster film script: 

"Eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."

That scenario, presumably, leaves established directors like Lucas and Spielberg to fight for their creative lives in a new and unforgiving world. But here's the thing: even as Lucas and Spielberg lamented the fall of their industry, they made a good case for more or less ignoring the demarkations between traditionally different forms of digital media — television, the internet (i.e. Netflix, which Spielberg specifically praised), and even video games, which both Lucas and Spielberg have dabbled in. An example: while lamenting that his industry doesn't take to kindly to riskier work these days, Lucas called cable television audiences "much more adventurous." So while the big coming implosion will be a big deal to the industry itself, it's less clear what the two famous filmmakers think it means for the people who just want to watch their work.