How you feel about Twitter’s 10th anniversary is probably a directly function of to how many people you’ve had to block, but there’s no question the site enables conversations that otherwise wouldn’t take place, at least not where we could see them. Case in point: An exchange between Edward Snowden and “The Wire’s” David Simon on the ethics of government surveillance.
The impetus was a tweet citing a report that ISIS relies less on encrypted communication than on disposable cellphones — the “burners” which were frequently used by Baltimore’s drug dealers in later seasons of “The Wire.” The sides break down more or less as you’d expect, with Snowden sounding the alarm, and Simon, a former journalist who worked closely with the Baltimore police, maintaining that “coms are an elemental investigative avenue.” But it’s a worthwhile back-and-forth, getting down to the nitty-gritty of just how far the precedent set by the landmark decision in “Smith v. Maryland” goes. And it’s worth pointing out that the entire discussion takes place in a civil and forthright manner, with no personal attacks or off-kilter insinuations. All Twitter disagreements should be so easy on the eyes.
“The Wire” (2002) is helping the terrorists. David Simon wanted for questioning. https://t.co/pHDpg5LI8i
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@Snowden Of course that is a credible tactical argument to get metadata ASAP, so as to isolate burner before discard. Just saying.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@Snowden Can’t speak to shelf-life of disposible phone in Pakistan. In Baltimore, discipline and cost are such that it can be days.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Fair point. My background is in intelligence, not law enforcement. Transnational terrorists aren’t hurting for burners.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@Snowden Neither should top-end drug traffickers in the more affluent US. And yet by the time the process trickles to the corner boys….
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Tbf, mass surveillance wasn’t pitched to catch “corner boys” or even “The Greek,” but on thwarting OBLs. And there, never worked.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Commercial activities (drug sales) will always generate records that sporadic offensive operations (terrorism) will not.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@Snowden Differences sure. But it’s remains that coms are the singular place where any conspiracy is vulnerable prior to crime. Gotta try.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@Snowden I acknowledge fears of a panopticon. I wish others would also acknowledge that coms are an elemental investigative avenue.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Nobody argues against comms surveillance. They argue about scope. Handsets v. networks. “Collect it all” v. individual warrants.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@Snowden We are not equating a court order with a Title III are we? Cuz metadata has never required a full warrant. Nor should it.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Many disagree. And NSA gets metadata and content in advance of warrant, by virtue of tech. Only use (“targeting”) is caveated.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Lawyers and policy people are comfortable with “trust us,” but the record is clear that that’s a mistake. https://t.co/pCxqnVFlO1
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@Snowden @kansasalps My training is that of a newspaperman. All gov’ts lie, as per IF Stone. And yet they must govern nonetheless.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
@AoDespair Even though we may disagree on the ultimate reach of Smith v. Maryland to modern comms, I enjoyed the exchange. Stay free.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 20, 2016
@Snowden Yes, this was interesting to me not only as content, but simply because it can happen. Crazy. best,
— David Simon (@AoDespair) March 20, 2016
Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here.
