Striking a Balance Between Digital Privacy and National Security
We live in a world today where the term “big data” gets thrown around frequently. According to Investopedia, big data refers to large sets of diverse information that arrive at in increasingly large volumes and at an increasingly rapid rate. The collection and analysis of big data has become an integral part of the efforts of American intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, to conduct constant surveillance on both both American and foreign citizens.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 that targeted the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. and the World Trade Center in New York City, American intelligence moved towards a more anticipatory model, in order to prevent future terrorist attacks on American soil. A large part of that shift involved the widespread adoption of predictive analytics fed by big data, with intelligence analysts attempting to find hidden correlations buried in large volumes of data. Initiatives such as the PATRIOT act, PRISM , and more contribute to the ever-growing effort by the United States government to implement data analytics into their efforts to maintain national security. However, the effectiveness of these types of programs rely upon collecting extremely sensitive and private data, such as emails, phone calls, social media activity, and more. It’s written in the Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution, 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…” Yet, the U.S. government continues to collect vast amounts of sensitive data without a warrant, or even general consent from American citizens, all in the name of “national security.” Without a doubt, we should be very concerned about government access to our personal information, and the unprecedented amount of power that it holds over us. It’s all too easy to envision a future where the government can abuse such privileges, and it’s our duty as citizens to ensure a future society that is able to strike a relatively healthy balance between freedom and security.
Examples of Government Data Collection
Most of us American citizens are likely vastly unaware of just how much our personal information is being tracked and analyzed on the daily. One common example is RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags. These small, microchip-like devices send out radio signals in order to give the objects they’re placed in a unique ID, and are used in instances like passports, toll booths, and more. According to Chapter 1 of The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics by Luciano Floridi, the worldwide production of RFID chips was set to reach 33 billion between 2005 and 2010, which is now close to two decades ago. Now imagine how much tracking technology has increased both in volume and in capability since then? Although this technology is relatively harmless and serves a concrete function in everyday society, it’s still an example of how data collection has permeated virtually every aspect of our lives.
However, not all data-tracking methods employed by our government are as innocent. Most of us weren’t truly aware of the terrifying capabilities our government wields to gather large swaths of sensitive information until the efforts of infamous former U.S. Government contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden worked alongside both the CIA and the NSA on their numerous digital surveillance efforts, and gradually became more disillusioned by the methods used by these agencies that he saw as unethical. Thus, he felt the moral obligation to alert the general public to these top secret programs. Over the years, he secretly gathered hundreds of thousands of classified documents, with a later estimate provided by the Department of Defense stating that he gathered over 1.7 million files. In June of 2013, after conducting a series of interviews with the Guardian and the Washington Post, the details of many classified U.S. surveillance programs, the most notable being PRISM, were leaked. PRISM, in short, allows the U.S. government to collect data from internet platforms like Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and more without a court-approved warrant.
According to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, PRISM wasn’t meant to “intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.” However, many Americans were rightfully outraged that the government felt the need to acquire such massive swaths of data without approval from any level of the judicial system. If their intentions with American citizens’ information was purely for the greater good of the nation, then why did the intelligence agencies feel the need to be top secret about their efforts?
General Consensus
The numbers show that discomfort about our government’s usage of our data is widespread. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2019, 63% of American adults surveyed believe it’s impossible to conduct their days without the government collecting some of their personal data, and 66% say that the potential risks of data collection outweigh the benefits. An alarming 84% say that they have little-to-no control over what data the government collects about them, 63% state that they understand almost nothing about the laws and regulations in place to protect their data privacy, and 78% have no idea what the government does with their data once it has been collected. In short, these numbers show that although the majority of American citizens are concerned about both how much data the government collects and how it’s being used, they feel as if they’re powerless to control it, and don’t know where to begin in terms of controlling it. In order for us to find a balance between security and privacy, the common American citizen must know what that entails, and that begins with government transparency.
The clamoring for government transparency was kickstarted by Snowden’s leaks, and civil suits filed against the NSA by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fanned the flames. Specifically, the ACLU filed a case alleging that the NSA’s practice of “Upstream” data collection, which targets data that travels along the “backbone” of the internet (cables, switches, routers), instead of the devices themselves. In essence, this allows the NSA to collect data on just about anyone who uses the internet. The ACLU’s case argues that for people trying to share potentially sensitive information fear they may face retaliation, or even death, if their identities are revealed through data collected by this method, which the ACLU believes violates First Amendment rights. In fact, this case was thrown out by a federal judge in California in 2015, as the plaintiff’s version of the operational details of Upstream data collection were allegedly inaccurate. However, the judge declined to reveal what the inaccuracies were, due to potential harm to national security. Cases such as this paint the picture of the conflict of interest between American citizens calling for government accountability, and the government wishing to maintain secrecy for national security purposes. But, if the government wishes to regain our trust in the fact that they have our best interests at heart when it comes to collecting their data, they cannot continue to remain so vague about their methods and their potential consequences.
The main way the NSA and other agencies are able to indiscriminately collect digital data is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to collect intelligence on foreigners currently located in the United States without a warrant, and prohibits the intentional targeting of Americans. However, this loophole of intentionality is continuously exploited, as in 2021 the 3.4 million warrantless searches were conducted by the FBI using Section 702. The Biden administration intends to renew Section 702 later this year. Although it is unrealistic for it to be discontinued entirely, us as Americans should call for reforms that ensure an increase in transparency and oversight over this program. Allowing unchecked surveillance such as the kind enabled by Section 702 tips the scales in favor of security over freedom, and we must be wary of similar programs being renewed, and potentially gaining more surveillance power over time.
Conclusion
One of the most basic aspects of American exceptionalism is the concept of a “free country.” Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” Although a bit harsh, Franklin does bring up a valid point. We live in an age of information, where such information can be easily weaponized and turned against us. Although it’s unrealistic to expect us all to be like Edward Snowden, it’s still our duty to ensure that our government is held accountable for their usage of sensitive digital data, so that we can maintain our idea of a free society.
