THE NSA LEAK: NATIONAL SECURITY VS. PRIVACY

By Benjamin Rosen

 

“Of course they are”. That’s the only memorable thought I can remember having while reading Glenn Greenwald’s expose in the Guardian. From the moment the NSA story broke the headlines, I’ve been far more surprised by the cloud of shock and awe surrounding the revelations than I am about the programs themselves.

 

To be fair, the outrage and revitalized interest in our civil liberties has been inspiring. The explicit proof of privacy violations has forced the American public to confront the dangers of a rapidly evolving technological society. More importantly, it has also led us back to the uncomfortable reality that governments, in general, have very strong incentives to minimize transparency in their policy decisions.

 

This technocratic trend is rooted in the belief that the American people are usually not informed enough on “important” issues to make rational decisions. Thus, the best course of action when crafting such policies is to keep the public relatively uninformed, letting those who are informed and capable make educated decisions, without having to justify their methods. By no means does the U.S. government engage in this sort of deception for all of its decisions, but it has become increasingly difficult for the public to involve themselves in issues of national security, foreign affairs and even economic policy.

 

The Obama administration’s response to the NSA revelations has been deliberately distracting, and verging on insulting. During his interview with Charlie Rose on June 17th, Obama briefly emphasized that citizens will not be flagged without explicit evidence indicating them as a national security threat. Not only is the definition of a “national security threat” already a nebulous and potentially meaningless term, but his defense intentionally ignores the primary complaint that I, along with most of my family and friends, have about the revealed programs: the blatant disregard of American public opinion when it comes to national security decisions that infringe on our civil liberties.

 

To be clear, I recognize the “trade-off” between liberty and security. Though this argument only seems to be brought up when discussing the need to minimize our privacy to make room for heightened security. I’ve never heard a public official use the dichotomy between liberty and security to decrease the number of metal detectors at JFK airport, or to reduce military spending. Furthermore, simply stating the existence of a “trade-off” gives the speaker the ability to make an incontrovertibly true and seemingly relevant statement about the matter at hand. It’s a very useful tool because it makes the claim that our safety as a country is at least partially contingent on the government’s ability to retain any information that it deems sensitive.

 

In the context of a specific issue of safety or sensitive information, this conflict is by all means a legitimate argument against complete government transparency. It only becomes a logical fallacy when it applies both to the secrets that a government keeps, along with its ability to justify the threats that publicizing such information would instigate. Followed logically, we end up in a situation where the only people that can argue in favor of forcing the release of sensitive information are those who already possess it.

 

This inability to confirm or refute the sensitivity of any particular piece of information is the primary concern of those closest to me. Amongst my “inner circle”, the revelations have not drastically changed our perception of the government, they merely furthered our agitation towards an institution that has become increasingly dismissive of public opinion. Obviously I cannot speak for all Americans, nor do I disapprove of the media frenzy following the leak, but I do not view this specific story much differently from other revelations regarding manipulated intelligence about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, predator drones and other government secrets retained in the name of national security. They serve as a message to the country that the government can set the range of issues which are subject to public participation by redefining and often times distorting the meaning of “national security”.

 

Of course, the American government would like to avoid having a candid discussion about the conflict between liberty and security, which is a primary driver behind the attacks on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. This is not to say that his conduct was legal, but the legality of his actions should be a separate matter. Instead, every major media outlet relished in posing the “hero or traitor” question, and there was rarely a discussion about the leak without Snowden’s name being mentioned more frequently than Obama’s, often times preceded by “high school dropout”. Following the reaction of both the mass media to past whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning, no one should be surprised that the conversation quickly steered towards Snowden’s character and the legality of his actions. But this does not stop me from feeling a deep sense of embarrassment and disappointment in the hypocrisy of many news organizations that criticize the release of information that is so important to the American public.

 

Regardless of the disingenuous nature of the question, I strongly believe that Edward Snowden is a hero. It is clear from his interviews with Glenn Greenwald that he was fully aware of the consequences, and could have just as easily sold the information for financial gain. But instead he gave it to the public through a journalist known for covering civil liberties, and has even agreed to return to the U.S., under very reasonable conditions, to face prosecution for his illegal actions. The inevitable negative effects that Snowden’s decision will have on his life was consciously outweighed by his commitment to an informed American public. I can’t think of much else that deserves more respect and admiration.

 

The revelations regarding the NSA mass surveillance programs are indicative of a deeper problem with the American political culture: the circumvention of public opinion to achieve objectives known only by a relatively small set of people. These objectives could be ideological, meritocratic or even well-meaning, but only feed the mistrust toward the American government that has been building both domestically and internationally, especially since the beginning of the “War on Terror”. Mass surveillance seems almost trivial when compared to botched night raids in Afghanistan and cruise missile strikes in Yemen. But the increasing number of both human rights and privacy violations lead me to wonder who is benefiting from these decisions. And the time is coming when we, as a country, will have to ask ourselves how much longer we can tolerate a government that so clearly desires autonomy from the public interest.