Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

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.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

On lawyers, government spying, and the NYC garment industry

*First appeared in the July 11, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle

When I read a bio on Glenn Greenwald, the columnist and lawyer who most recently achieved international fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective) for his role in revealing the government’s spying on law-abiding Americans, I couldn’t help but wonder: Did the New York garment industry lead to all of this?

Let me explain.

Greenwald’s bio, in short: He was a Constitutional and civil rights litigator and has authored several New York Times bestselling books. He formerly wrote for Salon and currently writes for that paper across the pond, The Guardian. By all accounts, he’s an eccentric yet highly capable individual who often finds himself at odds with both sides of the political aisle.

What really caught my eye was the high-powered law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz, where Greenwald began his litigation career. WLR&K is one of the most prestigious merger and acquisition firms in the nation where getting hired is a “small miracle.” Its website boldly declares: “We handle some of the largest, most complex and demanding transactions in the United States and around the world…We are thought leaders.”

To understand the culture of this law firm, we must go back – way back – to the New York garment industry…that is, if we give any credence to sociologist and author Malcolm Gladwell’s theory on success.

In his national bestseller Outliers, Gladwell argues that an individual’s success is not only tied to personal aptitude and drive, but also to external factors such as history, community, and opportunity. In one chapter, he focuses on how top law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz was founded through a combination of unlikely factors.

First, the partners were Jewish, meaning they weren’t considered hirable by the old-line Wall Street firms in the 50s. Often boxed out because of their “antecedents,” Jewish lawyers had to stick together and take whatever legal work the “respectable” corporate firms didn’t want. Turns out, what the old-line firms didn’t want was litigation work, particularly hostile corporate takeovers. That left only one option: firms like WLR&K.

Second, the partners enjoyed a bit of demographic luck, having been born during the “demographic trough” of the 1930s. The economic hardship of the Depression meant fewer families were having children, and the resulting generation was significantly smaller. This meant our four founding partners enjoyed smaller class sizes through grade school, which promoted their educational growth, and highly qualified teachers, since teaching was considered a high-status career in a post-Depression America.

Finally, the garment industry provided a way for New York Jewish families to make a living while honing business skills. Looking way, way back, European Jews had for centuries clustered in cities and took up urban trades and professions. The most prevalent of these lay in the clothing trade – a skill Jewish immigrants brought to the American land of opportunity.

From the late nineteenth century through the middle of the twentieth century, New York’s most economically vibrant industry was the garment trade, driven in large part by the Jewish communities. The industry provided a modest living and another benefit: It was, as Gladwell says, “explicitly entrepreneurial.” Jewish clothing makers were learning market research, manufacturing, and negotiation techniques.

You won’t be surprised to learn, then, that our founding partners grew up in households built on the garment industry: Wachtell’s dad was in the ladies’ undergarment business; Lipton’s father was a manger in a factory; Rosen’s father was a presser in Manhattan’s garment district; and Katz’s grandfather did sewing piecework out of his house. The entrepreneurial skills of the garment industry helped these young legal minds develop a wildly successful law practice.

Fast forward to 2013, when former WLR&K lawyer Glenn Greenwald drops a bombshell on the nation – nay, the world – by breaking the year’s most important story: The U.S. government is spying on citizens by collecting phone and internet records, emails, and other forms of communications…regardless of whether we Americans are suspected of any wrongdoing.

Greenwald broke the story because he gained the confidence of Edward Snowden, a former U.S. defense contractor who read Greenwald’s work and understood his passion for liberty. Snowden’s familiarity with Greenwald was made possible by outlets like Salon and The Guardian, which gave him a worldwide audience. These news outlets hired Greenwald after reading his blog entries on the legality of government spying – an area where Greenwald had gained expertise through litigating cases at a law firm he founded. Greenwald was able to found his own practice after learning the legal tricks of the trade at WLR&K, a firm which, as we’ve learned, owes its very existence in no small part to NYC’s garment industry.

As a real-life “outlier,” Greenwald’s life tracks nicely with Gladwell’s theory on success – the measure of which is subjective, of course. But I’m betting Greenwald’s gold standard is to have citizens call into question the proper role of the government in the areas of national security and preservation of personal liberties.

In that case, I guess I’m a Greenwald success story.


NOTE: Major h/t to Malcolm Gladwell, whose writing made this column possible. Read more about him. Or, read more about his book, Outliers.