By Cliff May
Thursday, January 09, 2014
If the attacks of 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that we
must connect the dots. But before we can connect the dots, we must collect the
dots. Those railing against the National Security Agency don’t seem to get
that.
On the other hand, it’s difficult to fault anyone for
being troubled by the government’s tendency to accrue power and erode freedoms.
As the Canadian author George Jonas instructed me in an e-mail: “Fido guards
the chicken coop but likes to taste chicken no less than the fox.”
This is an important debate, one that Edward Snowden has
energized — among the reasons the New York Times on the left and Senator Rand
Paul on the right think he deserves leniency. I’m not persuaded. Government
employees and contractors take an oath to protect the secrets entrusted to
them. If Snowden believed the NSA’s intelligence gathering crossed a line, he
could have gone to the agency’s inspector general, to members of Congress, or
to a serious and responsible journalist. Instead, he stole hundreds of
thousands of secret documents and divulged many of them (evidently not all, at
least not yet) knowing full well that America’s worst enemies would be among the
recipients.
His disclosures reveal no practices not overseen by the
executive branch, Congress, and the courts — and none that clearly violates the
law. He did not emulate civil-rights activists by committing an act of civil
disobedience and then accepting the judgment of a jury. Instead, he has sought
refuge from oppressive regimes. For these and other reasons, Snowden does not
deserve to be called a whistleblower. He is not a victim. And he is certainly
no hero.
He does, however, fancy himself something of a
philosopher. In a message broadcast on British television last month, the
30-year-old exile sorrowfully instructs the world that “a child born today will
grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll [sic] never know what it
means to have a private moment to themselves — an unrecorded, unanalyzed
thought. Privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and
who we want to be.”
First, no one’s thoughts are being recorded and analyzed
by the NSA. Second, many celebrities have much less privacy than you and I. Do
you really think that makes it impossible for Kim Kardashian to determine who
she is and who she wants to be?
Third, all this has nothing to do with the NSA’s
collecting “metadata” — billions of electrons that are preserved for use only
when evidence of intended malfeasance comes to light. “The National Security
Agency does not listen to Americans’ phone calls and it is not reading
Americans’ e-mails,” Representative Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee, said. “None of these programs allow that.”
“The call-records program is not surveillance,” Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee,
wrote. “It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the
records include names or locations. The NSA only collects the type of
information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and
received, the time of the calls and duration. . . . The NSA uses these records
to identify connections between known and suspected terrorists (as well as
terror conspirators and supporters). . . . It is necessary for the NSA to
obtain ‘the haystack’ of records in order to find the terrorist ‘needle.’”
Diminishing privacy is a legitimate concern but one that
has little to do with signals intelligence and a great deal to do with
modernity and advancing technology. If you used a credit card today, strangers
know what you bought and how much you paid. If you walk into a store, a camera
probably records your entrance. Your whereabouts can be tracked using the cell
phone in your pocket. Use it to make a call or send a text or check out the
prices of cars or clothes or firearms online, and you leave a trail.
Few of those trails are followed by government
cyber-trackers. But those that are can be productive: According to Feinstein,
the NSA metadata program has “played a role in stopping roughly a dozen terror
plots and identifying terrorism supporters in the U.S.”
Snowden’s televised message contained this additional bit
of kumbaya sophistry: “Together, we can find a better balance, end mass
surveillance, and remind the government that if it really wants to know how we
feel, asking is always cheaper than spying.”
As if the NSA cares a whit how Snowden or anyone else
“feels.” It is intentions that concern them — especially those involving mass
murder.
In neither his short television message nor his long interview
with the Washington Post last month does Snowden say a word about terrorism. He
talks of government having “the power to take away life or freedom” — ignoring
the groups and regimes openly committed to what they call a jihad aimed at
extinguishing the freedom and lives of “infidels.”
Does Snowden not believe a war is being waged? Or does he
think we can “end it” merely through exercises in “confidence building” and
“conflict resolution”? Or is his thesis that those whose job is to stop those
whose job is to kill us don’t really need intel?
Concern that the long war now underway will lead to a
government power grab is not unreasonable. There may be useful reforms that can
be implemented — e.g., maximizing security while minimizing intrusions on
privacy; worrying less about the collection of data and more about who gets
access to it and for what purposes; keeping Fido on a short leash while not
giving the fox easier access to the chicken coop. But I’d be deeply skeptical
about seeing Edward Snowden and associates as allies in these efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment