[ed. See also: The 9 Most Important Recommendations From the President's NSA Surveillance Panel]
Most people would object to the government searching their homes without a warrant. If you were told that that while you are at work, the government is coming into your home every day and searching it without cause, you might be unsettled. You might even think it a violation of your rights specifically, and the bill of rights generally.
But what if the government, in its defence, said: "First of all, we're searching everyone's home, so you're not being singled out. Second, we don't connect your address to your name, so don't worry about it. All we're doing is searching every home in the United States, every day, without exception, and if we find something noteworthy, we'll let you know."
This is the essence of the NSA's domestic spying programme. They are collecting records of every call made in the US, and every call made from the US to recipients abroad. Any number of government agencies can access this data – about who you have called any day, any week, any year. And this information is being kept indefinitely.
This is as clear a violation of the fourth amendment as could be conjured. That amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, and yet the NSA is subjecting all American citizens to both. By collecting records of who we call, the NSA is searching through our private affairs without individualised warrants, and without suspecting the vast majority of citizens of any crime. That is illegal search. And storage of this information constitutes illegal seizure.
A series of revelations about the activities of the NSA has alarmed civil liberties advocates and fans of the constitution, as well as those who value privacy. But until more recently, with the ever-more-astounding revelations made by Edward Snowden, most of the US citizenry has been sanguine. Poll numbers indicate that about 50% of Americans think the NSA's surveillance is just fine, presumably taking comfort in two things: first, in the agency's assertions that it's only the metadata that they're collecting – not the content of the calls; that is, they only know who we have called but not what we've said. Second, General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, has said that through this sort of data mining, they have prevented "over 50" terrorist attacks.
The problem here is that two things cannot be proven: we can't prove the assertion that 50 – or any – terrorist attacks have been prevented; and more pressingly, we can't prove that the NSA isn't doing more than collecting this metadata – or won't do more unless its powers are checked.
Most people would object to the government searching their homes without a warrant. If you were told that that while you are at work, the government is coming into your home every day and searching it without cause, you might be unsettled. You might even think it a violation of your rights specifically, and the bill of rights generally.But what if the government, in its defence, said: "First of all, we're searching everyone's home, so you're not being singled out. Second, we don't connect your address to your name, so don't worry about it. All we're doing is searching every home in the United States, every day, without exception, and if we find something noteworthy, we'll let you know."
This is the essence of the NSA's domestic spying programme. They are collecting records of every call made in the US, and every call made from the US to recipients abroad. Any number of government agencies can access this data – about who you have called any day, any week, any year. And this information is being kept indefinitely.
This is as clear a violation of the fourth amendment as could be conjured. That amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, and yet the NSA is subjecting all American citizens to both. By collecting records of who we call, the NSA is searching through our private affairs without individualised warrants, and without suspecting the vast majority of citizens of any crime. That is illegal search. And storage of this information constitutes illegal seizure.
A series of revelations about the activities of the NSA has alarmed civil liberties advocates and fans of the constitution, as well as those who value privacy. But until more recently, with the ever-more-astounding revelations made by Edward Snowden, most of the US citizenry has been sanguine. Poll numbers indicate that about 50% of Americans think the NSA's surveillance is just fine, presumably taking comfort in two things: first, in the agency's assertions that it's only the metadata that they're collecting – not the content of the calls; that is, they only know who we have called but not what we've said. Second, General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, has said that through this sort of data mining, they have prevented "over 50" terrorist attacks.
The problem here is that two things cannot be proven: we can't prove the assertion that 50 – or any – terrorist attacks have been prevented; and more pressingly, we can't prove that the NSA isn't doing more than collecting this metadata – or won't do more unless its powers are checked.
by Dave Eggers, The Guardian | Read more:
Image: Woody Allen, The Front
