National Security Vs. Privacy
In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, federal legislation that strengthened the federal government’s ability to gather national intelligence on the actions of enemies or potential enemies. Since then, there has been many debates in this country about the balance between national security and a citizen’s individual freedoms, such as the right to free speech. Last week, the National Security Agency (NSA) created considerable controversy when the British newspaper, The Guardian, revealed some recent practices that might be pushing the limits of what is legal.
On June 5, The Guardian reported that the NSA had ordered the telecommunication company Verizon, to turn over the phone records of their American customers. The next day, The Washington Post revealed that the NSA, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had obtained access to the servers of nine major internet companies – Google, Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Dropbox/Paltalk.
Data Collection Questions
The security of your cell phone conversations has been in the news recently. What safeguards does the government have in place to keep your freedoms secure?
As the story details have developed, it seems that the government agencies have operations that use these phone and computer records, emails, digital documents, videos, chats, file transfers, and connection logs to look for evidence of suspicious activity that might indicate terrorist planning. All of the companies involved denied knowledge of the program, although stories have been surfacing that suggest the opposite.
This data collection effort was identified as PRISM, although its official name is US-984XN. It began in the wake of September 11th. Data collection programs such as PRISM work in cooperation with the telecommunication and digital companies because these companies do not keep the necessary information for an extended period of time. Therefore, for any of this information to be useful to intelligence officers over time, it must be collected and stored by the government. It is how this information is accessed that is the source of much of the current controversy.
The Obama administration has repeatedly stated that collection programs such as PRISM must be operated through the approval of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISA court oversees requests of warrants by federal law enforcement agencies. The data collected from the phone companies cannot be accessed and analyzed unless a specific warrant is approved by the FISA court. The warrant must be targeted to grant access to look for specific information or to track a specific suspect only. This safeguard helps ensure that people’s privacy is not violated.
But the challenges of preventing terrorism make the value of (and the potential to abuse) this collected data much greater. The government is trying to balance the need for national security against the rights of personal liberty. Additionally, because terrorists and these data neworks operate around the globe, the problems don’t end at the borders of the United States. The Protect America Act of 2007, for example, allowed the government to monitor communications for up to a week without a warrant when one party is outside of the U.S.
The Leak
Agents involved in top-secret programs such as PRISM, rarely reveal any detail of their work. In this case a whistle blower (someone who works inside a company or organization who exposes wrongdoing for the sake of changing it) went to the press with his story because he felt the government’s methods was wrong. His name is Edward Snowden. He worked as a contractor for both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and then the NSA. He allowed The Guardian to use his real name believes he has done nothing wrong. However, Snowden is currently residing in China to avoid prosecution for violating the contract he signed when working for these government intelligence agencies.
The Court and the Fourth Amendment
The public details of this secret surveillance has many debating the legality of these programs. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires law enforcement to show probable cause in order to obtain a search warrant. This is to ensure citizens are not subject to harassment by an abusive government. But activities that involve foreign activities are treated differently. Before 2008, the government still had to prove that the target of its surveillance was an agent of a foreign power. Now, it must only show a “reasonable belief.” On the other side, some are saying PRISM’s level of interference is only very general, including only the numbers dialed and the length of the call. What is clear is that this issue will certainly lead to greater discussion of how far the government should be allowed to go in the name of national security.