Shocked, shocked
I’m surprised so many are surprised that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting data on your use of the phone and the internet. What did you think all those folks out at Fort Meade (and around the country) were doing? Tapping individual phone lines? In fact, my guess–and it is only a guess–is that they are storing not only your phone records but also your phone calls, though they only listen to them when the super-secret (and therefore unaccountable to the public) court, created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, gives permission. “Collection” is a tricky word. Is the data collected when it goes into a computer, or only when it is examined?
The notion that they are discriminating in this data storage is not credible. The frequency and volume of material argue for capturing it all so that it can be mined in due course, depending on which bits seem to be most relevant to protecting national security, especially against terrorists. That there are abuses I have no doubt, but that should not blind us to the extraordinary power–I almost said virtue–of a system that can archive and later examine many billions of messages of all types. It would be surprising if a system of this sort had not produced material of value in preventing terrorist acts.
But if I admire the power, we really do have to question the virtue. From the restrained reactions of members of Congress, it seems clear many of them knew of the programs in question and believe they are important to national security. Left and right civil liberties advocates are exercised about what has been going on, but my guess is that the American people will be split, with perhaps a majority thinking the surveillance is a good idea, so long as it targets foreigners. That of course should be no comfort on the merits. US citizen-perpetrated terrorism is increasingly likely as Al Qaeda and other extremists find their efforts to get foreigners into the US blocked.
I have long lived with the notion that everything I write on a computer, search on the web or send in an email is subject to examination. Does this limit my freedom? Yes. But there are still ways to limit surveillance–personal interaction and even the US mail, for example. I imagine most journalistic “confidential sources” insist on personal meetings rather than telephone calls and emails. If we want privacy, the rest of us are going to have to resort to more difficult to tap methods as well.
Of course this is ironic on a day that President Obama will complain forcefully to Chinese President Xi Jinping about Beijing’s internet snooping and theft, if not about its surveillance of domestic dissidents. But ironic doesn’t make it wrong. What we need to worry about is getting the safeguards and judicial processes in place to prevent abuse.
No country will unilaterally disarm itself in cyberspace. If the United States wants the Chinese to desist, it will need to offer something in return. I don’t imagine that Washington is completely without the means to snoop in China. And I don’t imagine that we have resisted the temptation to use that capability.
Like Captain Renault, I am shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here.
PS : if you are wondering about whether my guess about wide collection but close examination in accordance with a court order is correct, read this.
RSS - Posts
