Domestic Spying and Edward Snowden Essay

Domestic spying is the newest contentious issue in the United States following Edward Snowden’s disclosures

about how the government is going beyond its authority by spying on American citizens. (Greenwald, 2014). The two-part investigative program The United States of Secrets offers important and enlightening information about the vast spying apparatus used by the National Security Council. (Verble, 2014). The tension between security and preserving individuals’ right to privacy is the subject of controversy that follows the disclosures. The American constitution declares that the government’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of its citizens, and it also shields citizens from government snooping. This paper analysis the changes in domestic surveillance since 9/11, analysis if the surveillance keeps the country safe, the worth of giving up constitutional rights for safety and a turning point when Americans can be free from domestic spying.

How Domestic Surveillance have Changed and evolved since 9/11

In the period prior to 9/11, thousands of Americans had their communication networks like emails monitored, and the National Security Agency (NSA) actively spied on Americans as they surfed the internet (Zegart, 2009). In this period Americans were subjected to non-specific surveillance. In the wake of the 9/11 attack that was the worst terrorist attack on American soil, NSA crossed the line from the routine surveillance of foreign communications and suspected terrorists into illegal surveillance that adversely invades the rights to privacy. According to Bigo and Tsoukala, (2008), the surveillance activities by NSA are guided by US laws that prohibit spying on United States citizens, immigrants in the US on permanent residence or US Corporation. The NSA was only to spy on approval by court order. According to Zegart (2009), the new dimensions on NSA spying extended to monitoring international telephone communications and emails without prior approval by the courts.

After the attacks on 9/11, a brand new reality was forming at the federal watchdog the NSA (De Hert, 2005).

The NSA surveillance on Americans shifted from the routine limit to foreign targets. Instead, the security agency rolled out a new system to monitor virtually all communication information flowing through the United States without necessarily getting warrant or consideration for privacy protections. According to Solove (2011), NSA moved against the legal provisions for domestic surveillance since it was determined that several of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack were living in the U.S. The NSA specialists at the time argued that if there was a tool that could have facilitated monitoring of the domestic communications the attacks would have been prevented.

The domestic surveillance or spying system has evolved over time with the government getting more spying capabilities (Yoo, 2006).

The government employs hacking techniques and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s domestic wireless surveillance unit. According to Zegart (2009), the American technology companies like Facebook, Skype, Twitters, Google and other mobile carriers are allegedly turning over user information to the security agencies.

Domestic Spying in Keeping the Country Safe

The revelations about the NSA communication surveillance program open the debate over the balance between upholding civil liberties and national security (Bridegam, 2009). As it is true that spying on innocent American citizens is a violation of privacy, the electronic surveillance program is important in the fight against terrorism. It is important to appreciate that the primary role of NSA is to keep all Americans safe and with the growing trends in terror activities the society need to compromise between two extremes (Bridegam, 2009). The action by NSA to spy on American citizens is indisputable since the move is to ensure security. Besides, there is no documented evidence to prove unacceptable use of the gathered personal information.

Terrorism is a global challenge, and the perpetrators in most cases are people within such nations and not foreigners.

According to Richards (2014), the NSA surveillance program since its roll-out has not only countered terror attacks but has also been instrumental in stopping a number of international espionage plots. The global security threat is not receding, but the terror activities are transforming. According to Verble (2014), the perception that if the government agencies hold people’s private information, then there is the potential for abuse of personal information is not sufficient to challenge the surveillance program.

Is it Worth Giving up Privacy and Constitutional Rights for Safety?

The increasing security concerns globally put weight on the need for Americans to compromise and give up their privacy and constitutional rights for safety (Balkin, 2008). The trade-off between security needs and personal privacy attract divergent opinions since people appreciate the right to privacy that is safeguarded by the constitution but the issue of security is equally important. According to Greenwald (2013), it is important to appreciate that there can never be a balance between privacy and safety and so one aspect must suffer to realize the other. The majority will always choose security over privacy in cases where one is only to pick on one option. However, a majority of Americans are opting for privacy rather than security because there are past instances where stringent laws to restore security failed to be effective. The important point is finding a middle ground that assures the citizen that the information gathered by the security agencies is not subject to abuse and such a program guarantees security.

Tipping-Point for Americans

Since the revelation of the unlawful and illegal act by the government through NSA surfaced, there have been several arguments on the unconstitutionality of the move by the government. The existing option for the Americans to stop the government from spying on their communication is through legal suits. According to Richards (2014), the right to privacy is outlined in the American constitution that burrs any government agency from spying on Americans, immigrants with permanent residence or American corporations. However, security concerns over right most constitutional provisions because the government must ensure all citizens are safe. Terrorism is a real threat, and so the government must have its tools on the alert to prevent reoccurrence of 9/11 (Yoo, 2006). The only option viable to help balance between privacy and safety is having measures in place to prevent malicious access to private information that is gathered by the government agencies.

Terrorism and security concerns are not unique to the United States but are a shared concern by many nations globally (Greenwald, 2013).

Domestic surveillance is equally not a strategy employed by the United States alone but is being used by many nations amongst them Russia, Britain, France, Germany and China. Within all the countries that employ domestic surveillance as a security measure the citizens if those nations have similar concerns like the Americans. According to Greenwald (2013), china has the biggest concerns since its domestic spying is getting out of hand with the public official spying on themselves. Domestic spying is seemingly the option considered by most nations as the most effective approach to curbing terrorism and other threats to security.

Conclusion

The controversies around domestic spying attract non-converging argument, but the underlying reality is that security comes first. However, there are genuine concerns that the surveillance systems are not practical solutions to security but only systems denying citizens their constitutional liberties. The deliberations give more weight on the relevance of domestic spying for good reasons of ensuring security and preventing reoccurrence or serious attacks like 9/11. Subsequently, the security agencies should find ways of ensuring security but do not infringe on privacy.

References

Balkin, J. M. (2008). The constitution in the national surveillance state. Minn. L. Rev., 93, 1.

Bigo, D., & Tsoukala, A. (Eds.). (2008). Terror, insecurity and liberty: illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11. Routledge.

Bridegam, M. (2009). The Right to Privacy. Infobase Publishing.

De Hert, P. (2005). Balancing security and liberty within the European human rights framework. A critical reading of the Court’s case law in the light of surveillance and criminal law enforcement strategies after 9/11. Utrecht L. Rev., 1, 68.

Greenwald, G. (2013). NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily. The Guardian, 6(5), 13.

Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US surveillance state. Macmillan.

Richards, N. M. (2014). Why data privacy law is (mostly) constitutional. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 56, 1501.

Solove, D. J. (2011). Nothing to hide: The false tradeoff between privacy and security. Yale University Press.

Verble, J. (2014). The NSA and Edward Snowden: surveillance in the 21st century. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), 14-20.

Yoo, J. (2006). The Terrorist Surveillance Program and the Constitution. Geo. Mason L. Rev., 14, 565.

Zegart, A. B. (2009). Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton University Press.