An "interesting" question posed in this op-piece "Fine Print: Questions about security and privacy" in The Washington Post.
"Two interesting questions came up last week, both related to national security.
The first concerns what is more invasive for Americans: The National Security Agency storing all American telephone toll records for the past five years — and available for possible checking if called by an overseas phone linked to terrorists — or Facebook employing users’ profile pictures, locations and other personal information in advertising?
I ask because there seems to be an intensifying disconnect between the public and the government, and several issues involve national security.
Government distrust is a key factor in that disconnect, which isn’t new to anyone who lived through the Vietnam War, Watergate and Iran-contra, or more recently the invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Adding to the issue is the public’s lack of accurate information, some of it a result of the government’s failure to communicate in a timely way because information is considered classified. Other reasons include inaccurate statements by officials or media stories the government said were misleading.
An example: June’s initial news stories based on documents from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that focused attention on several bulk data collections. The one that most concerned Americans was the “215 metadata program,” which collected all U.S. phone toll records that included numbers called and duration of each call.
The 215 program did not collect names of phone subscribers, locations of the numbers or the contents of the conversations. Stored by the NSA, the agency insisted the data could only be searched when a U.S.-based phone was called by a foreign phone associated with a terrorist or terrorist group. If further investigation of the U.S. phone seemed warranted, it was turned over to the FBI, where a court warrant was required for a wiretap.
Disbelief, however, followed — especially after Snowden said during a video interview, “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the president if I had a personal e-mail.”
Snowden added that the metadata could be used “to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made. Every friend you’ve ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis, to derive suspicion from an innocent life, and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.”
Four months later, 39 percent of about 1,000 people polled thought the NSA’s 215 metadata program included listening to calls, according to Amy Zegart, co-director of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. The center sponsored the research.
The government must take some responsibility for the misconception. It failed to disclose in general terms what it had been doing. Since 2006, when the 215 program was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the Patriot Act, it had remained a closely held secret, even after it was disclosed that year in a USA Today report."
"Two interesting questions came up last week, both related to national security.
The first concerns what is more invasive for Americans: The National Security Agency storing all American telephone toll records for the past five years — and available for possible checking if called by an overseas phone linked to terrorists — or Facebook employing users’ profile pictures, locations and other personal information in advertising?
I ask because there seems to be an intensifying disconnect between the public and the government, and several issues involve national security.
Government distrust is a key factor in that disconnect, which isn’t new to anyone who lived through the Vietnam War, Watergate and Iran-contra, or more recently the invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Adding to the issue is the public’s lack of accurate information, some of it a result of the government’s failure to communicate in a timely way because information is considered classified. Other reasons include inaccurate statements by officials or media stories the government said were misleading.
An example: June’s initial news stories based on documents from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that focused attention on several bulk data collections. The one that most concerned Americans was the “215 metadata program,” which collected all U.S. phone toll records that included numbers called and duration of each call.
The 215 program did not collect names of phone subscribers, locations of the numbers or the contents of the conversations. Stored by the NSA, the agency insisted the data could only be searched when a U.S.-based phone was called by a foreign phone associated with a terrorist or terrorist group. If further investigation of the U.S. phone seemed warranted, it was turned over to the FBI, where a court warrant was required for a wiretap.
Disbelief, however, followed — especially after Snowden said during a video interview, “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the president if I had a personal e-mail.”
Snowden added that the metadata could be used “to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made. Every friend you’ve ever discussed something with. And attack you on that basis, to derive suspicion from an innocent life, and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer.”
Four months later, 39 percent of about 1,000 people polled thought the NSA’s 215 metadata program included listening to calls, according to Amy Zegart, co-director of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. The center sponsored the research.
The government must take some responsibility for the misconception. It failed to disclose in general terms what it had been doing. Since 2006, when the 215 program was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the Patriot Act, it had remained a closely held secret, even after it was disclosed that year in a USA Today report."
Comments