#1 The ACLU Speaks Up
The ACLU is at it again in trying to protect the freedoms of the U.S. citizens. They are suing the Obama administration over the phone data collection program put in place. This is not the first time the ACLU has had something to say against the NSA. They have filed previous lawsuits against them which were lost against both the Bush and Obama administrations. While their last suit was dismissed, this time they made the argument that the phone data program "violates Americans' constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy." They also claim that this data collection could be used in unethical ways. It could give insight into the family lives, religious affiliations and even intimate relationships of the American people. They said it is going to have a "chilling" effect on the people releasing the information.
#2 Phone Surveillance
So basically, The National Security Agency is collecting phone records. This includes everything from calls to text messages. It is an "ongoing" project that happens on a "daily basis" according to the NSA. For some this is a logical idea which has been put in place to guarantee the safety of American citizens. For others, it sounds about as freaky as that scene from The Dark Knight. You know the one, it's from that scene where Morgan Freeman tells Batman that he'll quit if he invades the privacy of civilians through their cellphones. It is a bit of a "big brother" nightmare but we could definitely see the benefits. Though the NSA's surveillance hasn't quite made it to sonar or infrared so that's one less thing to worry about for now.
#3 Your Friendly Service Provider
Rather than opting for some sweet sonar-navigated surveillance, the NSA is doing something much weaker though equally as creepy. They have partnered with Verizon (we knew they were evil) to gain direct access to their servers. This means that they will be able to monitor communication sent from or received by a Verizon phone. Among some of the other companies accused were Facebook, Google and Microsoft. The other companies denied these claims but Verizon and AT&T did not deny it. While AT&T has remained silent, Verizon's involvement with the NSA has been uncovered. Verizon is said to be "tackling the world's biggest problems" and apparently they do not consider the privacy of their customers to be one of them. Can you hear me now? ...Just playing, of course you can hear me and apparently so can the NSA.
#4 The National Security Agency
Not sure what the NSA even does? We were a little confused as well since surveillance of random citizens seems like it would add to security risks instead of reduce them. It turns out their job actually is to collect and analyze domestic communications and information systems. Who knew? Now before you go coming up with puns for their name (we totally call "National Surveillance Agency" by the way!) and writing rudely-worded hate mail, consider this: By law the NSA's intelligence gathering is limited to foreign communications. The agency has been around since the 1960s and there has only been one time in which they tapped the communication devices of people on American soil. This incident took place during the Bush administration to aid in the War on Terror in which text messages were monitored if they were being sent to phones outside of the United States. Aside from that, this means that before this whole Verizon thing blew up, the NSA has never really done anything like this before.
#5 Cue the White House
Now we know, you're probably asking yourself how any of this ties into The White House. Well, the NSA happens to be a branch of the United States Department of Defense. It is an agency that does not get a lot of media time (for obvious reasons, or course) so for many, this was the first time hearing about this branch's operations. In 2009, during the Obama Administration, the NSA began monitoring and intercepting the communication of American citizens. At the time is was considered unlawful and the NSA attempted to correct their mistake. Fast forward to April 25, 2013 when the NSA obtained a court order requiring Verizon's Business Network Services to provide information on all calls in its system on an ongoing daily basis. This has raised many eyebrows as it is not how the agency normally handles things. Fisa court orders typically only obtain records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group. This is the first time surveillance of this unlimited magnitude has been allowed among innocent, unsuspecting people. With the suspicious activity, people began looking to the White House with some serious questions.
#6 The Past, Present and Presidents
This situation brings us back to some of the past incidents with wiretapping and surveillance problems of the past. It has brought back the mistakes of the former administration and has made the office of the White House look dishonest. When Obama was elected, the world praised him for his promises to bring change we could believe in. One of his high-selling points for many voters was that he was the opposite of former president George W. Bush. Could it be that some of their agendas were really the same? Bush was viewed as a villain for his involvement with the NSA, especially for the scandal caused by the warrantless wiretapping between 2001 and 2007 through the Bush Administration. Yet in 2009, after Obama had already taken office, a similar incident occurred. On top of which, United States Attorney General Eric Holder resumed the wiretapping even after the NSA has promised they had stopped.
#7 Cyber Safety
In addition to the invasion of privacy through phone calls, the NSA has been responsible for some other questionable activities. Evidently, computers have been tracked as well for an unspecified amount of time. In May 2013 it was revealed that the NSA runs a secretive unit called Tailored Access Operations. For years the NSA did not acknowledge the unit’s existence though information about it had been leaked through various sources. Eventually a Pentagon official acknowledged the existence of the unit and confirmed it conducts what it calls "computer network exploitation." This hacks into foreign computers to conduct espionage on devices. Pentagon hackers within the NSA harvest over 2 million gigabytes of stolen data every hour which is the equivalent of hundreds of millions of pages of text.
#8 Breaking the Laws
The grounds of the lawsuit are based on two amendments. The first being The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18 in 1977. Senator Ted Kennedy proposed it and was signed into law by President Carter the next year. This was already a hot button issue at the time because President Richard Nixon had spied on political and activist groups using federal resources. That same year, extensive investigations began which searched out the legality of domestic intelligence activities and tried to set everything right. Some operations were shut down and as a result, we entered into a time in the nation where the privacy of citizens was taken more seriously than ever. With this in effect, no one can legally engage in the kind of warrentless surveillance the NSA has though Verizon unless a war has just started. Even then, the law states that the surveillance cannot exceed 15 days.
#9 The Patriot Act
The second concerning part of this incident has to do with The Patriot Act. According to Section 215, the government can apply to the FISA court to have businesses hand over user records. Surely with the Patriot Act on their side, what the NSA did was perfectly legal right? Well, according to the reauthorized version passed in 2005, that's certainly not the case. Any data requested from an FISA order "must be 'relevant' to an authorized preliminary or full investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." In other words, getting all of the phone records from every Verizon customer doesn't count as 'relevant' content.
#10 Only the Guilty...
After the program became public information, there were some divided options. While most seemed to feel it violated their privacy, others were perfectly find with it. A common comment about the program is that "only the guilty have something to hide." That may be true in a specific sense but in general, most people like to keep their personal information to themselves. It raises the question about what is the acceptable amount of personal information that should be shared. As the ACLU would later argue, this invasion of privacy will give NSA agents a "wealth of detail" about our personal lives. Information that even some of our closest friends and family members may not know about us.
#11 Selfish Gain?
Before we go throwing a parade for the ACLU (don't worry, they know how to throw one for themselves anyway) we should consider some facts. The American Civil Liberties Union is indeed suing the Obama Administration but it's not focused on the good of the American people as a whole. The lawsuit was filed on their behalf. "This dragnet program is surely one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. When we hear statements like this, we can't help but applaud the efforts of the ACLU but then we're reminded of a key detail of this case. In case you missed this little bit of information, the ACLU uses Verizon. That is the service provider they have been going through for years for their union-related phone calls. While it is nice to think that the group is suing for the good of all of us, we can't help but wonder if they'd be making such noise about it if they were Sprint customers instead.
#12 TMI
The ACLU raises a very good point. How much information is too much information? Should the concern come from knowing that someone will learn our crimes or that they'll know our intimate details? According to the ACLU, this program “gives the government a comprehensive record of our associations and public movements, revealing a wealth of detail about our familial, political, professional, religious and intimate associations [and] is likely to have a chilling effect on whistle-blowers and others who would otherwise contact.” Though one has to argue, is this really any different than the information people willingly share through social media each day? We have put our lives on display through our favorite spots on the internet and yet we're upset because someone may actually be paying attention? This feels like two halves of the same coin. Everyone wants the freedom of speech but so many have a problem with knowing that someone is actually paying attention to what is being said. It boils down to this, can this lawsuit be won? And even if it does, will anything really change?
#13 Social Media Privacy
Among some of the other companies questioned, popular sites like Facebook and Google were asked if the NSA had asked them for information. There had been a rumor going around that the NSA had gained access to the servers of these companies and could freely obtain personal information. All of them denied any involvement with the agency. This is a valid concern being that social media sites have become a favorite form of communication. Socializing has moved to the web, for many it is used to share more information than a phone call or text. When the news broke about Verizon some were worried that the NSA had also acquired their emails, social profile updates and personal information used in these accounts. Some have argued that there is no difference between what most people freely share online and the information the NSA has obtained without permission. This is a good point but the difference between say and Google account and unwarranted retrieval of phone records is that the customer has a say in what information they are comfortable with sharing.
#14 If the ACLU Wins
The chances the ACLU will win are actually pretty high. They have a solid case and plenty of well-known information to back up their claims. Since the lawsuit applies to their organization and they are only suing the top four parties involved, they have a fighting chance. However, the results may not be the golden ending we're all dreaming of. When dealing with some of the best attorneys in such a high court in the system, everyone knows the laws. This will be helpful in defending rights but it also means that some of these laws may be used in ways against the ACLU's case. Even if the union wins, it will likely not cause the NSA to stop gaining access to domestic records. In the likeliest case scenario, they will probably walk away with the agency purging the stored records of the ACLU and a successful moment in the spotlight by the union.
#15 If the ACLU Loses
From here it seems that the ACLU has a very strong case. There is still a chance that they will lose but even in worst-case scenario, it may not be much different than if they win. We've established that a won lawsuit will likely benefit the ACLU the most, leaving little resolved for the citizens. The only real downfall we see here is the intentions of the ACLU. This is not the first time they have sued over this issue. It seems a little convenient that the union finally has something substantial to hit the White House with in court. As many have mentioned, the union seems to run the risk of letting their emotions and personal score take control of the situation. There is also the factors of national security and sovereign immunity which the NSA may decide to use in their defense. At this point the outcome is about 50/50. Only time will tell because it's still anyone's game.
No comments:
Post a Comment