For the past two decades, terrorism has proved to be the biggest threat to peace and security across the world and since the 9/11 attacks on the US soil, America and other countries have stepped up their anti-terrorist measures to prevent any future terrorist attacks. The government agencies tasked with these anti-terrorist measures claim that the techniques they use to collect data such as wiretapping and metadata collection help them pinpoint terrorists and their plans before an attack is planned and thus prevent them from happening. However since the Snowden leaks, these techniques have come under tremendous scrutiny. Internet users, hackers and the general public are worried about the lack of privacy that these techniques bring forth and the perils of constant snooping. Government agencies on the other hand defend these measures saying that in the age of sophisticated technology it is important to collect as much as data possible and sift through it to identify potential terrorists and threats. The anti-terrorism measures have been controversial as they impinge on the rights of citizens due to their secrecy but have also in certain cases helped prevent attacks. There are thus both advantages and disadvantages to these measures. The only way to justify government snooping on private citizens would be to prevent any terrorist incident and that has not happened so far. A responsible program would be something that prevents attacks without impinging on the rights of the citizens.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act was a legislation that was passed with unanimous support by the Congress soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (The Ethics, 2006).. The passage of this Act gave the US law enforcement agencies the power to search and sift through telephone and email conversations of citizens, private records of people such as medical and financial transactions and also enable intelligence gathering of foreign subjects within the country. Their powers were also expanded as this Act gave them the authority to detain non-US citizens who were suspected of terrorist activities and also increased the regulation over financial transactions. On top of monitoring terrorist activities outside of the country, this Act also included domestic terrorism to track homegrown terrorist networks. In effect the patriot Act gave the government as well as the law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to gather data about citizens without their active approval. With the PATRIOT Act the US government agencies were given the power to collect information about US nationals as well as people from other countries.
The wire tapping and metadata collection by the government agencies, especially the National Security Agency (NSA) came into world attention when The Guardian published an expose in 2013. Edward Snowden, a contractor working for the NSA leaked sensitive documents that detailed the extent of the government surveillance over ordinary people. The Snowden leak was a major setback for the government as the metadata and wiretapping activities so far had largely remained secret. It was also not known that the government was also surveilling US citizens. Soon after the leaks were published, there was a huge furore in the country which led to a congressional hearing about the activities of the NSA. The metadata program exposed by Snowden brought into friction the NSA and the constitution. While the Constitution provides for individual and private rights, the metadata program was a direct assault on the rights to privacy of a citizen. The metadata program however comes under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This section allows the government to collect “books, records, papers, documents, and other items” that are “relevant” to “an authorized investigation (Schwartz, 2015).” Although worries about the extensive, sweeping powers extended to law enforcement agencies started coming up as early as 2001 ( during the discussion of the PATRIOT Act), the actual extent of the activities did not come out until the Snowden leaks. The leaks revealed that the program not only collected data of suspected terrorists but also private data of Verizon and other telecom and internet service providers. In 2013, in a conference organized to explain the activities of the NSA and its programs, the former NSA director, Gen Keith Alexander, the metadata program had succeeded in preventing 54 terrorist attacks around the world and 13 within the country (Kelly, 2013). He also explained that the NSA's PRISM surveillance program collects online data such as web chats, internet searches etc and that it was only applicable to foreign nationals and not the citizens of the country. He also reiterated the fact that this information was completely essential to target and root out any threats before it happens. The government stance remained that these activities did not abuse the rights of the United States citizens. The advantage of these programs according to the agencies was that it not only helped them identify suspects but that it was also under secure conditions. It was done under high security conditions and not everyone could have access to this information. The courts and the congress also ensures that the NSa and other similar agencies work under the constraints of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Also the government agencies only have a select number of people who could access and study this information.
While the NSA contends that all the information collected are relevant and is used to thwart terrorist activities and attack across the world and inside the country, the program is not entirely without its faults. Terrorist attacks such as the 7/7 attacks in London, the Charlie Hebdo attacks and similar attacks were carried out by terrorists who were already under the watch of the government agencies. In spite of having data about them, these agencies could not connect with each other effectively and as a result the attacks happened. In spite of collecting information from emails and telephone conversations (Metadata program allows the agencies to know how long a call goes far and who the caller and the called is), the agencies failed to act on it on time. The claims of these agencies that justify this mass surveillance are also not credible as traditional investigative techniques such as “the use of informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations, provided the initial impetus for investigations in the majority of cases, while the contribution of NSA’s bulk surveillance programs to these cases was minimal ( Cahall et al, 2014).” In their policy paper titles, Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs stop terrorists, Cahall et al argue that these programs only served to identify a miniscule number of terrorists as well as their activities. According to them, the amount of data collected and the substantial money spent on these activities did not justify the results.
The metadata program, wiretapping and other techniques used by the government agencies are not only about the intrusion of privacy in the lives of citizens but also about the authority the government has over its people. The fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Jarvis, 2013).” The amendment clearly states that the citizen has a right to privacy inside of their homes against any illegal measures by the government. However the PATRIOT Act gives the agencies the right to search under reasonable cause and doubt. Also these online surveillance and telephone tapping mechanisms ensure that the cops do not have to enter any physical dwellings but can track people remotely. Although the Act and many of the techniques employed by the government clearly violate the provisions set in the constitution, these programs are not illegal as they come under actions carried out under exigent circumstances. When national security is under threat the government has the right to exercise rights that it sees best.
Terrorist attacks around the world have multiplied and it has increased the amount of surveillance across the world. Major cities have CCTV cameras installed in public spaces where the activities of the citizens are monitored. Airports have many layered security checks and financial transactions are monitored and regulated. These techniques have their benefits as the number of thefts and murders in public spaces have come down and it also serves as a tool to help catch criminals. Increased security measures have also thwarted many terrorist attempts around the world. Data shared between the governments has also ensured that foreign nationals acting inside of another country are tracked and their activities made known to the relevant authorities. However there are serious disadvantages to these techniques. To begin with, there is a lack of privacy. Not only are the citizens’ personal data scrutinized but also legitimate and innocent searches can lead to people being branded as terrorists are as aides to terrorists. Also the amount of data at hand does not match the manpower that law enforcement agencies have. this means that even though there is information at hand, the governments lack the physical force to track everyone. Massive surveillance has only resulted in the created of the “Orwellian world” where big brother watches over everything. In the case of the metadata program the means do not justify the ends. There is no definite guarantee that the information collected would not be used for vindictive purposes or for a witch hand. There is also a possibility that this can be accessed by hackers. In the end, there are more disadvantages to these programs than their uses.
Works Cited
“The Ethics (or not) of Massive Government Surveillance.” cs.stanford.edu. 2006 Web. 17 Feb 2016.
Schwartz, Mattathias. “The whole Haystack.” Newyorker.com. 26 Jan, 2015. Web. 17 Feb, 2016.
Kelly, Heather. “NSA chief: Snooping is crucial to fighting terrorism.” edition.cnn.com. 1 Aug, 2013. Web. 17 Feb 2016.
Cahall et al.“ Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?” newamerica.org. 13 Jan, 2014. Web. 17 Feb, 2016.
Jarvis, Jeff. “The primary NSA issue isn't privacy, it's authority.” The Guardian. 30 Dec, 2013. Web. 17 Feb, 2016.
