NSA domestic surveillance and the erosion of citizen privacy rights

Privacy or Surveillance -- Political Topic

Privacy or Surveillance?

We live in an age of heightened concerns about terrorism and public safety. The events of 9/11, the constant threat of future terrorist plots and mass shootings and public bombings have put both the American people and government on high alert. Some of the government's responses have included development of the Department of Homeland Security and terrorist threat level systems (Hiranandani, 2011). Other efforts have included intense, and oftentimes undercover, surveillance of the activities of everyday citizens. This is particularly true regarding cell phone conversations, email exchanges and web-based activities.

Recent news has highlighted that the National Security Agency (NSA) has used thousands of analysts to listen to domestic phone calls and monitor emails and text messages without the consent or knowledge of the American people (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013). The NSA acknowledges these practices and argues that court authorization is not always necessary; they also point out that there are numerous cases where such surveillance has stopped terrorist attacks and help ensure public safety. However, many feel that this is still a violation of the privacy of everyday citizens (Bailey, 2013). This debatable topic is the focus of this paper.

Recent News

A former NSA insider named Edward Snowden recently made headlines by blowing the whistle on the secret practices of government surveillance, pointing out that most activities are poorly regulated and that what is really meant to protect the public can at times cause more harm than good (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013). Snowden served as a former NSA infrastructure analyst. He claims that NSA surveillance practices often target those who are in actuality innocent and therefore the surveillance efforts pose constitution problems. In recent weeks, he has shared highly classified NSA program details with the press including the practice of intercepting and wiretapping phone lines. According to Snowden, his disclosures are an effort "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them" (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013). It is now known that a classified NSA program called NUCLEON is often used to intercept phone calls and route spoken words to a central database (Bailey, 2013). So far, the government has not offered any public estimates of how many times this has taken place, what activities and words may trigger concern or any other NUCLEON details.

It is estimated that the NSA has the ability to record endless domestic and international phone calls and reference them for future use (Pulliam & Rothfield, 2011). Much of the surveillance takes place at a large, Utah-based data center where anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million phone calls may be recorded by those who fall on a special target list (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013). This has led to many questions from the American public, politicians and legal experts. Namely, is this constitutional?

Invasion of Privacy or Homeland Security?

The NSA uses a very powerful surveillance tool known as Echelon (Pulliam & Rothfield, 2011). It is designed to intercept, analyze and dispense information collected from a network of global satellites. Digital data is gathered and transmitted to the base stations of many governmental agencies. This process is known as data-mining and includes info from a countless number of devices -- personal computers, fax machines, cellular devices, and even microwaves. It is estimated that there are nearly 3 billion communications intercepted each day (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013).

Echelon is a perfect example of how using the web or mobile devices can mean voluntarily sharing personal information. Website cookies, registered user profiles, web bugs and internet service provider (ISP) monitoring are all forms of surveillance are working behind the scenes as we post updates on Twitter and Facebook, send emails to coworkers and friends or pay our bills or shop online (Hiranandani, 2011). The government has access to citizen information and seemingly does not have to ask for permission to scrutinize it. It is understandable that in an age of terrorist threats the government would have renewed interest in the daily lives of all residents of the United States. Yet critics say that civil liberties are trampled on by agencies that use loopholes in the laws to take advantage of technology and play by their own rules in deciding who to target and how information is interpreted (Richards, 2013).

Cell phone surveillance is at the center of the governmental surveillance vs. civilian privacy issue. Cellphones offer great appeal to governmental groups because they continuously search for signal towers to send identification information (Clark, 2006). This makes phones, and the movement of those using them, traceable. In addition, a popular feature known as a global positioning system (GPS) has offered convenience and security to consumers and governments alike. Most citizens use GPS for tracking stolen vehicles, requesting roadside and emergency help, and obtaining mapping or directory information. However, both cell phone and GPS records include details that can be requested by law enforcement agencies and governmental agencies at any time and without consent of the user (Bailey, 2013). This information is attractive to those attempting to pinpoint the whereabouts, activities or movements of known or suspected terrorists.

Another controversial point is the government's use of keystroke loggers (Richards, 2013). Keystroke loggers record typing activity on computers. In some scenarios they are helpful. Parents can use them to monitor the web activities of their children, employers can monitor workers and technology teams can use them to detect errors in computer systems. Keystrokes can be monitored from anywhere and also include date and time stamp. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has used keystroke loggers in the past for extended monitoring of suspected terrorists or others accused of breaking the law (Clark, 2006). Many object to this practice because keystroke loggers can also record extra information beyond basic communications (Pulliam & Rothfield, 2011). In other words, what a person believes to be a private conversation can be monitored. What he or she is saying (and to whom) can be examined by special agencies and taken out of context or misconstrued, making someone an unwitting target.

It is interesting to note that telecommunication companies such as AT&T and Verizon have allowed the NSA to tap into their fiber links and receive immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013). This is because of a 2008 Congressional amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA Amendment Act) which says that surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Baily, 2013). A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA "may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States" (Barrett, Ballhaus & Aylward, 2013). Critics state that this is ambiguous and leaves the door open for governmental agencies to intercept data and simply maintain that it is not intended to "target" a specific American citizen (Richards, 2013). Clearly, the laws are subject to interpretation.

Conclusion

By sharing once classified NSA surveillance information with the general public, many have categorized Eric Snowden as an American hero and patriot, opening the public's eyes to the truth. Others have labeled him a traitor who blew the whistle on his own government. I would have to side with those who support him and believe that people should be able to live in a free and democratic society without having to compromise control over their personal information. The American people deserve protection from unjustified probes and also the mistakes and misinterpretations of governmental agencies and their analysts. There are no clear checks and balances, something that is sorely needed if the personal rights and freedoms of citizens are to be protected while the government seeks to protect the nation as a whole.