Prism and Privacy, and the Scramble for Denial

There is a clear desire to close the speculation about the blanket intrusion into the communications of citizens as soon as possible, and it is easy to make terrorism the excuse for any secret activities that have been, or are, ongoing, and then to refuse to divulge more on the grounds of national security. Some people may accept this placebo explanation, but many, rightly, will not, particularly as the storm has broken just as the Obama administration is having to account for the unlawful tapping of journalists’ records and movements and IRS irregularities related to political freedom of expression. It is unfortunate timing for politicians but excellent for the dispelling of illusion. I listened both to Snowden’s interview yesterday and to the Guardian journalist who conducted it, himself being interviewed on BBC Radio. Snowden was articulate, intelligent, and sincere and Ewan MacAskill sounded genuine when he indicated he found him credible and impressive, a geek but a likeable one. It was a contrast to hear, in the UK, establishment figures like Sir Malcolm Rifkind and William Hague dismissively deny any illegality in its use of American intelligence but giving no evidence to support their case on the grounds of of national security. Perhaps because of my work as a channel and psychic, I have a nose for smelling out truth and prevarication when it is presented to me, and I smell one of each in this situation. I have a sense of a musty long-hidden box of unedifying secrets, including this controversy over Prism and hidden surveillance, being forced open by seekers of openness and a very nasty odor coming from it. It just doesn’t smell right, like much of what is being presented to you and me, and all of us who have no privacy any more. [byline]  ]]>