Members of American Civil Liberties Union have requested for U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley to halt and investigate the scope of how much the NSA can tap into the privacy of the people. Each day, programs run by the National Security Agency pick up countless pieces of Internet and telephone information routed throughout U.S. networks.
The ACLU appealed for Pauley to declare the program unconstitutional, for it exceeded the congressional authority issued by the Patriot Act. They also defended that in order to protect the Americans' constitutional rights, the courts must narrow and confine only on the collection of certain phone data.
The government's interpretation of the Patriot Act, which strengthens the security controls of the government in order to regulate and stop further terrorism, has become so broad that it could justify the mass collection of private data of many Americans without their knowledge.
Wiretapping, according to government lawyer, Stuart Delery, has helped disrupt and prevent potential terrorist attacks, and the analysis of phone records have been an essential key to finding connections pointing towards the terrorists. Intelligence officials also defended that many of their targets are foreign suspects outside the US, emphasizing that they are precise on the idea of not looking too much into the content of conversations of many of the nation's citizens. Further support explains that the surveillance done by the NSA is not ordinary, in a sense that it is supposed to detect and obstruct terror plots.
To what extent do you think the NSA's surveillance is constitutional?
Article
10 comments:
I know that what they are doing has helped keep us safe in the past, but I still don't approve of it. Even if it has given us some leads on terrorist activity in the past, I feel that the government is interpreting the Patriot Act in a manner that allows them to do what they want without thinking about the privacy of its citizens. There has to be a better, more efficient way to find people who are trying to do us harm than by combing through people's phones, and for that matter, there has to be a way to do this that does not infringe on our constitutional rights.
The first thing I noticed about this blog post was the cartoon. While it made me laugh, it also goes to show that even with all the press surrounding this type of activity, there is still a lack of understanding among the general public about how it really works. I have a mixed view on this issue. I believe in an American’s right to privacy and think it is disturbing that such action would be necessary to protect national security. However, given the number of phone calls made each day, I am guessing the NSA does not have the manpower to pay attention to all of the content. I am guessing that they don’t care about the phone calls I make to my grandma. I would rather that they be able to monitor calls for suspected terrorists than have absolute privacy. That just seems unrealistic.
Like Annika and Alex said, I think that this strategy to try and protect the American people is not the most efficient taking in to account the amount of calls that are made in one day. I think there must be a better way to keep America safe, rather than having to filter through every single phone call the people make. But while I do think that it is wrong that they are infringing on the people's rights like this, at the same time I feel like it doesn't really impact my life. I understand that some people feel uncomfortable with the possible looming presence of the government listening to what youre saying. But for me, I don't really use the phone enough or have enough private discussions through the phone where I feel greatly impacted by the Patriot Act.
I agree with Annika. I respect that the government is acting in the nation's best interests, but I also believe in protecting the right to privacy. I thought that Brandon brought up the important aspect that it doesn't directly affect me. This is obviously an issue that demands attention, but, to answer the posed question, when the NSA crosses the line and violates the privacy of law-abiding citizens, that's too much. It's hard to discern where that line is though.
I find it interesting that people are still directing their outrage at the NSA when perhaps the focus should be the law that supposedly authorized the NSA to conduct such surveillance activities in the first place. To me, the constitutionality of the NSA's surveillance depends on the constitutionality of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the NSA to request to see private phone data, given that the reason for suspicion is not based entirely on First Amendment activities. Section 215 also states, "No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section." Thus, the law seems to explicitly authorize the collection of phone data without Americans' consent or knowledge, so the NSA's current activities would not be violating current law.
Whether or not the law is in accordance with the Constitution is a different matter that we might see decided in the future, and also one that perhaps we should have thought about when this provision of the Patriot Act was first passed.
To respond to a point Annika brought up, "I am guessing the NSA does not have the manpower to pay attention to all of the content," the NSA apparently has the ability to monitor 75% of all domestic web traffic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSBRE97K02V20130821
Like Annika said, they do not have the manpower to be constantly monitoring this percentage of the web, but they do retain the ability.
In my mind, the NSA is held to very little accountability. Multiple internal audits found the NSA guilty of breaking its own privacy rules, and overstepping its legal authority.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-15/world/41431831_1_washington-post-national-security-agency-documents
Such lack of accountability is what motivated Snowden to release all those documents earlier this summer.
Unless it can be held to legal standards, the NSA cannot be trusted with the ability to touch such an unprecedented percentage of information.
I agree with Brandon in the sense that I don't feel like there has been a significant direct impact on my own life, but I do feel that we as citizens need to take a more direct stand against such things. For one Edward Snowden, there are thousands who were employed to develop and use these surveillance technologies, and we need to recognize that. Furthermore, we need to recognize that what's legal isn't necessarily what is right. The Patriot Act enables an enormously broad degree of power, but this was post-9/11 when the public was fueled by hysteria. But what I've noticed in particular with the whole ordeal is that technology is surpassing old bureaucratic and legislative restraints--government agencies are acting with greater discretion. Sure, they are justifying actions with the same values, but many people are calling for a line to be drawn. My question is: how can we draw a line without obstructing the advancement that is inherent to new technology? The world seems to be moving too quickly for anybody to understand the long-term benefits of short-term actions.
Ultimately, as Patrick has noted, there are two questions - whether the Patriot Act itself is constitutional, and whether the government's actions under the Patriot Act are constitutional. From my understanding, I believe that both are unconstitutional - Section 215 explicitly provides a blanket ban on speech regarding the execution of the section, which yields itself to prior restraint. Furthermore, the fact that court opinions are, for the most part, unavailable to the public, means that there is a real possibility that the law is violated without the subject ever knowing what had been violated. The notion of a secret court, I believe, is abhorrent to a free society if civilians are to be tried under it, as it essentially prevents full criticism and public scrutiny by obstructing the flow of information.
Having said that, the government's actions are unconstitutional because ultimately they cannot prove that each individual they collect data on under this program falls under probable cause for a warrant, and data such as emails and webpage accesses are protected under the 4th and 1st. The monitoring of such communications creates a chilling effect on the freedom of association and speech - who is willing to go onto a relatively anti-american site knowing that the government could be waiting and watching?
In the United States, an individual is more likely to be killed by domestic violence, lightning strikes, car accidents, and even the flu than via terrorist attack, yet the amount of resources we devote to this hunt far outstrip the sum total of that spent on preventative and palliative measures for the above. Considering how I am more likely to be killed by a crazy driver on 92 while driving to school than I am by a networked terrorist, I would argue that there is nothing to fear.
I agree with what others have said before me in that the NSA does not pay attention to all of the content and largely does not affect our everyday lives. However, that issue here is that the NSA potentially could. The method of monitoring such huge amounts digital communication requires computer algorithms rather than manual human labor, and as such there will be many false positives - more innocent civilians will be marked than terrorists. Like Nathan said, the number of networked terrorists planning to stage an attack are extremely small.
In addition, with the power allowed due to the Patriot Act, the NSA can prosecute with shaky surveillance evidence, and like Jack said, the agency is held to very little accountability. This could be potentially dangerous for everyday civilians, but currently it is constitutional under the Patriot Act.
Like many of the others have said, the root of this debate and problem lies in the Patriot Act. Personally, I think that the Patriot Act should be revisited and reconsidered. As Patrick said, the constitutionality of NSA's surveillance is dependent on the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
Last year in English I had to debate the effectiveness of the Patriot Act and found some noteworthy data. A Syracuse University study found that "despite the three-and-a-half-fold increase in terrorism convictions, the number who were sentenced to five years or more in prison has not grown at all from pre-9/11 levels.” Furthermore, the number of convictions actually dropped. Essentially, the Patriot Act has allowed for more people to be convicted without actually receiving time in prison.
Additionally the Patriot Act is seemingly ineffective. With regards to the Boston Marathon tragedy last spring, the FBI received a tip from Russia in 2011 stating that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was involved in terrorist activities. The FBI then acted on this tip by investigation. When nothing was found amiss the case was closed. Although the Patriot Act was enforced during that time, it still was unable to prevent the deaths of three individuals and the injuries of 264 others.
So while I think that the Patriot Act is well intentioned (to protect U.S. citizens), its execution is clearly lacking. With a better defined, revised version of the Patriot Act, Americans can know what to expect from the NSA. I think that the NSA needs to provide some proof that this incessant data collecting somehow benefits the American society as a whole. Similar to Jack and Sean's beliefs, I think that ultimately for the NSA to be a successful and effective institution it needs to be held to much greater levels of accountability. By asking the court to limit the NSA, the ACLU is pushing for increased transparency, and thus accountability, in the NSA.
Post a Comment