In 2013 Edward Snowden, while
working for Booz Allen Hamilton as an NSA contractor, copied extensive amounts
of classified information detailing global surveillance programs, mostly
centered on the NSA and Five
Eyes. Snowden proceeded to cautiously leak the particulars of various
programs and operations to news organizations in the US. The leaks revealed a
global surveillance apparatus, which searched private online content, tracked
cellular devices, and undercut encryption, among other things. In June 2013
Snowden was charged with theft of US and foreign government property and of
violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Snowden currently resides in Russia, where
he has been granted a three-year asylum, while he seeks asylum elsewhere. (See
John Oliver’s interview with Snowden in Russia here [note - explicit language].)
Disclosures
The first
major revelation that came from the Snowden leaks was the PRISM
program. The program facilitated court-approved NSA access to private
communications and usage of common search engines, including Yahoo and Google. However
the surveillance network extended well beyond this. The leaks went on to reveal
the NSA was collecting and storing phone records of millions of Americans. The
United Kingdom spy agency GCHQ had tapped international fiber-optic networks,
and was sharing large amounts of this data with the NSA. The United States had
hacked Chinese networks, bugged European Union offices, intercepted phone calls
of 35 world leaders, spied on 38 embassies, monitored US allies in Latin America
through a “continent-wide surveillance programme,” collected text messages, and
stored financial information, contacts, and location data. The NSA was also
found to be spying on World of Warcraft, Second Life, and Xbox Live accounts
and activity. NSA employees were found to be using this network to spy on their
love interests, termed ‘LOVENIT,’ and track targeted individual’s sexual
activity. The agency was even found to be surveilling charity organizations
such as UNICEF. For a more detailed description of the major revelations see here. For a full
timeline of the Snowden leaks see here.
I also highly recommend playing around with the Guardian’s interactive NSA
Files page, which is quite funformative, found here.
Another great resource if you are interested in the documentary ‘CitizenFour’.
Fallout
Since the Snowden revelations
there has been a lot said of Snowden and his decision to reveal classified
information to the public. The Pentagon
has reported that Snowden’s actions will have staggering consequences to US
intelligence capabilities - it will put American troops in grave danger and
diminish the US’ ability to defend itself and its citizens. The report,
however, seems to be purposely vague as to of what these staggering
consequences might be constituted. After criticism, the DIA released a
report detailing how the Snowden revelations had harmed military capabilities -
a report which was heavily redacted, and of which 27 of 39 pages were withheld.
The continued
secrecy surrounding the programs is justified by preserving what strength
the intelligence industry has left in the interest of protecting United States
citizens.
President
Obama and members of Congress have agued that the surveillance programs have
saved American lives, often citing the ‘thwarted 54 plots’. As it turns out
however, these claims have overblown
and misleading. The surveillance network played a role in less than five
percent of such cases, and worse, the mass collection of US citizens’ data has
led to “no
discernable impact” when it comes to preventing terrorism and protecting
Americans.
Snowden
remains in an undisclosed location in Russia, hoping to one day return to the United
States, though he does not find this likely. Current whistleblower protection
laws do not apply to government contractors like Snowden, and unless laws
change, Snowden will have little prospect of returning home. Attorney General
Eric Holder was quoted
as saying: “Clemency isn't something
that we (are) willing to consider." Other public figures have also been
vocal on the issue. One of the few in support of Snowden was Ron Paul, who called
Snowden’s actions courageous. On the other end of the scale, former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton has called Snowden’s intentions suspicious, and
insinuated that due to the extensive whistleblower laws (which again would not
apply to Snowden), only someone who had foul intentions would flee to China.
Discussion
Edward
Snowden has been called everything from a traitor to an American hero, and the
debate is not settled. Even today, in the current election cycle, we have
candidates that support the surveillance programs and others that condemn them.
My personal view is that Mr. Snowden exposed a network of programs that
secretly intruded into millions of American’s lives on a daily basis. Even had
such an intrusion been effectual at the protection of citizens and preventing
terrorism, I would not have found this acceptable. These programs received an
estimated $52 billion dollars of taxpayer money in FY13. I cannot stomach the
idea of the taxpayer funding the mass infiltration of US citizens’ lives by the
federal government, not to mention the glaring lack of tangible
benefits/success. I believe Mr. Snowden to not only be brave, but also
incredibly selfless - were I to come across something that I thought to be
significantly immoral, and would have to give up every facet of my life as it
exists today to reveal it, I’m not quite sure what I would do.
I agree with you 100%. I think that Snowden was brave in outing this information. I personally might not have had the courage to do that. I think it is admirable that he gave up basically his entire normal life in order to expose something like this to the public. I don't believe the NSA programs are useful, considering they haven't helped that much in prevention of terrorism, and they are highly intrusive. It is crazy to think how if Snowden had not done what he did, we may not have known about this still.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Edward Snowden was an American hero and should be thought as one. Despite what the NSA has done, it is still a vital part of our national defense system. The NSA by itself is not what people fears, but the “big brother” aspect of their mission that concerns people. The NSA grew out of a necessity during wartime to protect the United States from foreign threats and that is still one of the main goals of the NSA. I think Edward Snowden's leaks was a good thing because the bulk telephony metadata collection expired last year most likely to due the Snowden revelations. Although the NSA doesn't have the direct access to the data, they can still request it from the phone companies. I think this is a step towards the right direction. However, there are still some scary things that the NSA is doing such as PRISM (I think that's still going on) where they have backdoors to companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc's servers and that's still has severe privacy issues.
ReplyDeleteI am appreciative of what Edward Snowden did. While I understand why the government reacted in the manner that they did I think the public had a right to be aware of the extent of the NSA's actions. Every time I drive past the NSA's data banks out by Camp Williams I wonder what information is stored there and if any information about me was collected so I am grateful to Snowden for exposing the what surveillance was being conducted. However, I understand the government's claims that the exposure compromised missions although I wish they would be more specific. I don't think Snowden will ever be allowed to return to normal life but the American public had a right to know what was happening and Snowden did a good thing by sounding the alarm.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally am very in support of what Edward Snowden did. Even in the abridged version of what happened listed in Joe's post, we can see that, whether or not we can truly know the extent of what happened, our government was doing shady things behind our backs, and this knowledge may never have become public were it not for Snowden. I agree to a small extent that releasing information of this nature can lead to some potential problems, but the lack of specificity in these claims to me seems as though it may be more smoke and mirrors to try to win the court of public opinion, similarly to how the government will continually try to remove our rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism. We are moving in a better direction in terms of regulation with this type of material, but it's frankly shameful that it had to come to this before we could start moving in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the common sentiment – Edward Snowden did an overall good thing when he brought to light the NSA’s activities. What he did was illegal; however laws are challenged all the time. It’s an important way to keep the government in check and hold them accountable for unconstitutional or unethical activities. While the argument for the increased surveillance being needed to combat terrorism has been made, the reality is that the NSA has gathered far more information, and the vast vast majority of it is irrelevant. The amount of invasiveness also violated many privacy issues, including the first tort, intrusion upon seclusion, and potentially disclosure of private facts as well, the fourth tort. Edward Snowden’s leak may have been illegal, but it brought to light a shadier dealing of the government and highlights the need for transparency and governmental oversight.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Snowden is a patriot, and the idea that whistleblower laws didn't apply to him because of a technicality is abhorrent. The fact that the NSA collected these records in bulk is the primary thing that worries me. At least if their requests were all directed towards specific individuals rather than massive pools of largely innocent people, the privacy invasion would be minimized. But instead, we get a mother knows best mentality, where the general population is completely unaware that the services that they use on a daily basis, without thinking, have effectively been co-opted into surveillance mechanisms. Whether or not you "trust" the government is irrelevant, governments should be largely structured so that trust is unnecessary. Obviously there are things that can be exploited, but I believe that it is people's duty, as citizens, to oversee the government to ensure that none of their rights are infringed. The results of his actions are still to be determined, but I truly believe that Edward Snowden did more to protect the citizens of the united states than the programs he exposed ever did to protect them.
ReplyDeleteConsidering Anne's statment about the effectiveness of the NSA, I would like to point out that because of the high level of secrecy the U.S. is currently employing in its counter-terrorist efforts, the actual results of the effectiveness of programs like the NSA may not yet be revealed.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do not agree with President Obama and his administration when they condemn Snowden's whistleblowing efforts. While I understand the need for secrets in certain military actions, I believe that a transparent government is a healthy government and I applaud Edward Snowden for exposing surveillance and secrecy to the people of the United States. Certain amounts of surveillance is required to keep a nation safe, but when used too much it restricts the freedom of the people. I would add that, although I do not agree with the fundamental nature of mass surveillance, if the United States had told its people they were being surveyed a certain amount, it might help prevent terrorism because people act differently when they know they are being watched.
I agree with what has been said prior regarding Snowden having done a good thing. While his courage is impressive, I think the most important thing to take out of this is that there needs to be better transparency between the American public and the American government when it comes to protection and privacy. I'm not sure if all of you watched the John Oliver interview which was mentioned in the post, but John Oliver makes a great analogy: If you have a pet hawk and a pet mole, letting them coexist without any restrictions will end in the demolition of the mole. This is true with privacy and protection. If we do not have any restrictions on what the government can do in the name of protection, we will have no more privacy (as is, arguably, the current case). I am most appalled by the behavior of the NSA agents who had access to this information in situations like LOVENIT and targeted tracking of individuals sex lives. This is not information that is generally necessary for the NSA to have in the first place, but to see the abuse of it makes me feel uncomfortable to let them have that information in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what has already been said, I think that snowden made the correct call and was very responsible in the way that he handled the affair. Leaking documents through a journalist and combing through the data to make sure he didn't expose information that should stay classified. I am most appalled by the encryption revelations wherein he revealed that the NSA had actually weakened encryption for its citizens in order to spy on our enemies (by weakening random number generators in open source projects, and pushing for their implementation to be the default). This puts everyone's information at risk, both against common criminals (who could use the flaws to steal bank accounts/paypal, etc) and against foreign nation states.
ReplyDeleteCases like this are very difficult. There is no easy answer to any aspect of this case. Personally I could not imagine having to make the decision that Snowden was faced with. No one person should have to make a decision of that magnitude on their own. Which is exactly why I think he did the right thing.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not America needs to resort to extreme surveillance measures for the sake of national security is a complicated question that should be analyzed and discussed by many different people with different points of view. This is exactly what our government is for. The fact that a small subset of our government took it upon themselves to act in our best interest is an extreme violation and not what our government is for.