Public opinion on Snowden mixed, but spy revelations impact politics, policy

*Originally appearing in Jan. 23 edition of the Laurel Chronicle

A few nights ago I watched the movie J. Edgar. With the talk of wiretaps, conspiracy, and governmental spying on American citizens, I couldn’t help but draw a parallel to today’s NSA.

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden rocked the world with his revelations about intelligence gathering practices conducted by the NSA.

The revelations caused swift and unexpected reactions. The public was outraged (though perhaps not for long?), and political alliances were forged based on concern for personal privacy or national security, not political party affiliation.

Yeah, it was weird.

Today, it seems the public has (somewhat) moved on from the NSA leaks, even as President Obama and others promise to reform the way we collect information that can help protect our national security interests.

In a Jan. 17 nationally televised speech on NSA reforms, President Obama recognized that in our “rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats,…the possibility that we [lost] some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced.”

The President recommended a series of reforms, including prohibiting spy agencies from storing Americans’ phone records (though experts agree this will take months, if not longer, to implement); restricting how we spy on foreign allies; and creating a new public advocates panel to weigh in on these issues.

His words sounded good, but his promises were ambiguous. I assume that’s intentional, since he’s walking a not-so-enviable line between protecting personal privacy and protecting America from security threats.

You could say he’s between “Iraq” and a hard place. (Government spying increased after 9/11, which led to searches for weapons of mass destruction, the fall of an Iraqi dictator, and an ever-growing NSA data collection program…)

To those who have questioned whether Snowden’s leaks have done more to harm the country than to help it, I say only this: Without the Snowden revelations, there would be no presidential address on NSA reforms and no meaningful discussion about the role of the government in spying on American citizens. It’s a simple truth, but an important one.

So, are you paying attention? According to a Pew Research Center poll, a mere eight percent of Americans have heard a lot about Obama’s proposals. Seventy-three percent say the President’s changes will have zero impact on protecting personal privacy (two out of three people felt similarly in a Rasmussen poll). Skepticism of the NSA surveillance programs keeps on growing, with 52 percent of Americans disapproving and only 38 percent saying they trust leaders to ensure spy programs are constitutional.

In the midst of this, I wondered how Jones Countians felt about the NSA spying on citizens, Edward Snowden (hero or traitor?), and general attitudes toward government overreach. Toward this end, I polled folks on Facebook…and got a dismal response. Either folks don’t care (see above), didn’t see my post, or simply didn’t want to be quoted in a column.

One response I did get, however, was insightful. Aaron Jacobson, who I know from church many years ago, said Snowden is neither a “hero or traitor. It seems a little too easy to classify in those terms.” Snowden has raised “some very serious issues that strike at the very heart of what our democracy means and what privacy and freedom mean within it.”

My father reminded me of a Ben Franklin quote, which I will paraphrase here: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I certainly agree with that philosophy, but its practice is more complex.

So, in summary, Snowden’s actions are controversial, but they’ve had an impact on the way leaders are publicly dealing with security and privacy issues. Whether the impact is reality or perception, long-standing or fleeting remains to be seen. Public outcry has waned, but skepticism about the spy programs keeps growing. And to top it all off, these issues really aren’t driven by either political party.

Big Brother needs Big Transparency

First appeared in the July 18, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.

Last week in this column, I wrote about Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the National Security Agency (NSA) government spying story, with a particular focus on his personal story of success. Let’s continue that conversation, only this time we’ll focus on what really matters: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of…surveillance?

I must admit: Watching the news lately is like being inside a spy drama, except it’s not so easy to tell who the good guys and bad guys are. But this is no ordinary spy drama; indeed, it’s got elements of those futuristic novels we all read in high school (do they even teach those anymore?) that show a world where citizens’ actions are monitored, free thought is considered a crime, and everyone wears white jumpsuits.

I guess I wasn’t the only one who noticed these eerie similarities. Sales of the classic George Orwell novel, 1984, spiked after the NSA surveillance news broke, increasing more than 10,000% on Amazon.

Whoa.

Of course, that was precisely my reaction when I first heard about the NSA’s surveillance activities. To summarize what we all (think) we know by now: The NSA has been tracking phone calls, emails, photos, search histories, and other data in a sweeping program aimed at gathering data on potential threats to America’s national security. The information is being collected whether or not the citizen is suspected of any wrongdoing. The targets include folks like you, me, your grandmother, and the crazy cat lady next door.

A number of top internet companies, including Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, and others, are also involved in the program. The extent of their involvement has mostly been kept under wraps due to a gag order, although this week Microsoft was the latest company to ask Obama’s Department of Justice to lift the gag order.

"The Constitution itself is suffering, and it will take the personal involvement of [U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder] or the President to set things right,” wrote Brad Smith, general counsel and executive vice president at Microsoft. Companies like Google and Yahoo are asking for similar freedom to prove to consumers they made efforts to protect the privacy of user data. Turning over emails and other records to the government isn’t so great for company PR.

My concern is the continual creep of the government into my personal activities. The Wall Street Journal said it best when they observed: “Americans would worry less about the government spying on them if, for example, the Justice Department wasn't secretly spying on the Associated Press and Fox News. Or if the IRS wasn't targeting White House critics. Or if the Administration in general showed a higher regard for the law when it conflicts with its policy preferences."

Today, we know the government is watching us, which causes me a great deal of concern. But if you find yourself unconcerned or confused about these programs, then you’re not alone.

One poll from Time/ABT-SRBI conducted on the topic showed mixed results, with many respondents thinking the government’s surveillance efforts have gone too far. Another poll by ABC/Washington Post showed that Americans are split down the middle when it comes to collecting “telephone and Internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts." Importantly, roughly 90 percent of respondents said they have less privacy than previous generations when it comes to personal information.

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that “most Americans seem willing to trade some privacy for security, but are unsure about the right combination.”

That seems like a fair observation. Americans are unclear as to how they feel because, I believe, they don’t have enough information to make a well-informed decision.

Consider one congressman who said that journalist Glenn Greenwald didn’t “have a clue” how the NSA program worked. In a tweeted response, Greenwald replied: “That’s why transparency is needed.”

I agree. We need more transparency from the President and his administration on this issue. We need to better understand how these programs operate. We need answers on why the NSA director's approach to citizens' data is "collect it all" as the Washington Post intimated this week. We need answers on how that's legal and not a violation of our constitutional rights. We need to understand why there are “secret courts” that make rulings on these issues. And so on and so forth.

I can't help but think of what our President said in the wake of this controversy: "You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience."

The unfortunate reality is that we're never going to have 100 percent of either. We can't ensure the nation's safety against all threats, nor can we expect to maintain full privacy in an increasing digital world. But what we can have is more transparency. If Big Brother keeps on growing, so too should Big Transparency. Your freedom depends on it.