Just over one year ago, Glenn Greenwald’s NSA surveillance article in The Guardian shocked the U.S. public and the world. Disclosures of documents and court orders (e.g., Verizon) provided by Edward Snowden, then a Booz Allen Hamilton employee, revealed the scope of NSA spying and introduced the term “metadata” into the public consciousness. Metadata refers to the “envelope” of a phone call or internet communication, which usually includes location information. For a phone call, metadata includes call duration, phone numbers, and time of day; for an email, this includes the sender, the recipient, and time of day, but not the subject or content. [For a complete timeline of the NSA scandal’s unfolding, see this BBC piece.]
Public criticism of NSA surveillance centers around two key numbers—215 and 702. These numbers refer to specific NSA programs: the first refers to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which allows the collection of phone records in bulk; the second refers to Section 702 of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), which was added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This second section involves the collection of information from internet service providers and the electronic communications of foreign targets overseas. [For an in-depth analysis of these programs, see this Congressional Research Service Report.]
The NSA Debate
However, the “upstream” collection of online data by the NSA may result in the incidental collection of communications between two people in the United States (due to the “contact chaining” method). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has ruled that these programs in their current form do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; however, internet and phone service providers and civil liberties groups do not agree. The main points of contention involve the indefinite storing of metadata, the lack of transparency in FISC proceedings, and the ease of determining someone’s identity based on the collected data.
Hypothetically, NSA employees and contractors/consultants like Snowden could learn a person’s identity, daily routine, habits, preferences, and lifestyle just by using accessible metadata. Further concern arose when the $1.7 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah was completed in 2013—the campus houses supercomputers that store large amounts of metadata for NSA purposes. Recently, a U.S. district court judge upheld the preservation of NSA surveillance records “relevant to ongoing lawsuits, including data gathered under a controversial provision allowing harvesting of foreigners' U.S.-based e-mail and social media accounts.”
NSA Implications
The NSA controversy is not contained within U.S. borders. Fallout from PRISM, the codename for the data collection from internet companies (e.g., Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple), is best evidenced by the Angela Merkel episode. Merkel is the current Chancellor of Germany and allegedly was the target of U.S. surveillance. Though the United States denies monitoring Merkel’s phone, U.S.-German relations were damaged—Merkel commented in October 2013: “Spying among friends is never acceptable.” In January 2014, Merkel delivered a “strong rebuke” to the United States, stating that “Western powers sacrificing freedom in the quest for security were sending the wrong signal to ‘billions of people living in undemocratic states.’” Many countries are mentioned in Snowden’s leaks, which are detailed in this timeline.
Additionally, PRISM is causing U.S. tech companies to lose credibility, especially abroad. Silicon Valley cannot afford to lose its reputation with foreign customers, but U.S. data-collection policies may scare away future contracts. A strong cohort of internet companies recently joined with privacy advocates to start movement called “Reset the Net,” which stands against “mass surveillance” by the U.S. government. Participants include Reddit, the “front page of the internet,” as well as Mozilla, Imgur, Tumblr, and CREDO Mobile. Many tech companies have created security tools that make internet activity more difficult to monitor. Google is listed on the Reset site and is offering a new Chrome extension which encrypts emails—aptly named End-to-End.
Ongoing Legislation
After a year, Congress (unsurprisingly) is stuck on reform. In May, the House passed the USA Freedom Act, which would make companies responsible for bulk data collection, instead of the NSA. The bill would require telephone and internet providers to retain information, which (in theory) would preclude the NSA from doing so. But time took its toll on rolling back NSA spying powers, as the bill became more and more “watered down.” Critics of the USA Freedom Act, including tech giants Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook, dropped their support after the bill was changed in negotiations; privacy advocates prefer the version of the bill unanimously approved by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
The most contentious issue is the definition of “specific selection terms,” which refer to the type and scope of the data collected—critics of the bill believe the new definition is easily exploited due to broad and vague language. [For a comprehensive analysis of the USA Freedom Act, see this New America Foundation report.] Vague language could allow for the collection of Americans’ private information based on ZIP codes or IP addresses. According to Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), “The bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for ‘area code 616’ or for ‘phone calls made east of the Mississippi.’” Amash, one of the bill’s original co-sponsors, ended up voting against it after all the changes had been added.
As of June 2014, the Senate has not taken action on the House bill. The difficulty lies in striking the balance between liberty and security, and Senators are all over the map. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated that he would “fight for a stronger USA Freedom Act [which] bans bulk collection of data, provides greater accountability and improves transparency.” But Senate Intelligence Committee members tend to be more tolerant of NSA surveillance methods. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said that she was disturbed by the “continual demonization of the National Security Agency” and questioned why “a telephone company would be a better, safer place” to hold metadata. [For more Senate views on the USA Freedom Act, see this Politico feature.]
Snowden’s Impact
Snowden’s impact on U.S. policy is yet to be seen. Interestingly, the NSA debate may foster some non-traditional political alliances—between tech giants and civil liberties groups; between far-left progressives and libertarian conservatives. Privacy advocates are calling for stringent overhauls of the NSA, whereas entrenched members of the intelligence community (IC) back more general reforms like ‘better oversight’ and ‘enhanced accountability.’ The debate will continue, as both sides attempt to balance practicality and constitutionality; but both parties agree on one thing—reigning in the abuse of power. In light of the dozen cases of “willful abuses of power by NSA analysts,” the last thing the United States needs is another J. Edgar Hoover.
Adam Clark Estes says it best in Gizmodo: “[One] year later, Edward Snowden is an international celebrity, and the United States is internationally infamous for its profoundly invasive and technologically advanced surveillance practices. The American public is more cynical about how the government treats privacy issues, and the president is a little bit more outspoken in talking about how the intelligence community works. But only a little. [...] All those changes are pretty subjective, though. When it comes down to the specific, measurable impact of the Snowden leaks on the country and the world, you have to wade into the weeds a little bit, and separate out the difference between more insight and actual change. As it turns out, the world today looks a lot the world before Snowden. Just angrier and more confused.”
[For an in-depth discussion of future NSA reforms, see this Brookings debate held on the one-year anniversary of the Snowden revelations—June 5, 2014. The debate features Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) and Julian Sanchez (CATO Institute) on the “fundamental reform” side and Carrie Cordero (director of National Security Studies at Georgetown Law) and John “Chris” Inglis (former NSA deputy director) on the “measured reform” side.]
a global affairs media network
A Guide to the Edward Snowden Anniversary
July 18, 2014
Just over one year ago, Glenn Greenwald’s NSA surveillance article in The Guardian shocked the U.S. public and the world. Disclosures of documents and court orders (e.g., Verizon) provided by Edward Snowden, then a Booz Allen Hamilton employee, revealed the scope of NSA spying and introduced the term “metadata” into the public consciousness. Metadata refers to the “envelope” of a phone call or internet communication, which usually includes location information. For a phone call, metadata includes call duration, phone numbers, and time of day; for an email, this includes the sender, the recipient, and time of day, but not the subject or content. [For a complete timeline of the NSA scandal’s unfolding, see this BBC piece.]
Public criticism of NSA surveillance centers around two key numbers—215 and 702. These numbers refer to specific NSA programs: the first refers to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT ACT, which allows the collection of phone records in bulk; the second refers to Section 702 of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), which was added by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This second section involves the collection of information from internet service providers and the electronic communications of foreign targets overseas. [For an in-depth analysis of these programs, see this Congressional Research Service Report.]
The NSA Debate
However, the “upstream” collection of online data by the NSA may result in the incidental collection of communications between two people in the United States (due to the “contact chaining” method). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has ruled that these programs in their current form do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; however, internet and phone service providers and civil liberties groups do not agree. The main points of contention involve the indefinite storing of metadata, the lack of transparency in FISC proceedings, and the ease of determining someone’s identity based on the collected data.
Hypothetically, NSA employees and contractors/consultants like Snowden could learn a person’s identity, daily routine, habits, preferences, and lifestyle just by using accessible metadata. Further concern arose when the $1.7 billion data center in Bluffdale, Utah was completed in 2013—the campus houses supercomputers that store large amounts of metadata for NSA purposes. Recently, a U.S. district court judge upheld the preservation of NSA surveillance records “relevant to ongoing lawsuits, including data gathered under a controversial provision allowing harvesting of foreigners' U.S.-based e-mail and social media accounts.”
NSA Implications
The NSA controversy is not contained within U.S. borders. Fallout from PRISM, the codename for the data collection from internet companies (e.g., Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple), is best evidenced by the Angela Merkel episode. Merkel is the current Chancellor of Germany and allegedly was the target of U.S. surveillance. Though the United States denies monitoring Merkel’s phone, U.S.-German relations were damaged—Merkel commented in October 2013: “Spying among friends is never acceptable.” In January 2014, Merkel delivered a “strong rebuke” to the United States, stating that “Western powers sacrificing freedom in the quest for security were sending the wrong signal to ‘billions of people living in undemocratic states.’” Many countries are mentioned in Snowden’s leaks, which are detailed in this timeline.
Additionally, PRISM is causing U.S. tech companies to lose credibility, especially abroad. Silicon Valley cannot afford to lose its reputation with foreign customers, but U.S. data-collection policies may scare away future contracts. A strong cohort of internet companies recently joined with privacy advocates to start movement called “Reset the Net,” which stands against “mass surveillance” by the U.S. government. Participants include Reddit, the “front page of the internet,” as well as Mozilla, Imgur, Tumblr, and CREDO Mobile. Many tech companies have created security tools that make internet activity more difficult to monitor. Google is listed on the Reset site and is offering a new Chrome extension which encrypts emails—aptly named End-to-End.
Ongoing Legislation
After a year, Congress (unsurprisingly) is stuck on reform. In May, the House passed the USA Freedom Act, which would make companies responsible for bulk data collection, instead of the NSA. The bill would require telephone and internet providers to retain information, which (in theory) would preclude the NSA from doing so. But time took its toll on rolling back NSA spying powers, as the bill became more and more “watered down.” Critics of the USA Freedom Act, including tech giants Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook, dropped their support after the bill was changed in negotiations; privacy advocates prefer the version of the bill unanimously approved by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
The most contentious issue is the definition of “specific selection terms,” which refer to the type and scope of the data collected—critics of the bill believe the new definition is easily exploited due to broad and vague language. [For a comprehensive analysis of the USA Freedom Act, see this New America Foundation report.] Vague language could allow for the collection of Americans’ private information based on ZIP codes or IP addresses. According to Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), “The bill was so weakened in behind-the-scenes negotiations over the last week that the government still can order—without probable cause—a telephone company to turn over all call records for ‘area code 616’ or for ‘phone calls made east of the Mississippi.’” Amash, one of the bill’s original co-sponsors, ended up voting against it after all the changes had been added.
As of June 2014, the Senate has not taken action on the House bill. The difficulty lies in striking the balance between liberty and security, and Senators are all over the map. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated that he would “fight for a stronger USA Freedom Act [which] bans bulk collection of data, provides greater accountability and improves transparency.” But Senate Intelligence Committee members tend to be more tolerant of NSA surveillance methods. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said that she was disturbed by the “continual demonization of the National Security Agency” and questioned why “a telephone company would be a better, safer place” to hold metadata. [For more Senate views on the USA Freedom Act, see this Politico feature.]
Snowden’s Impact
Snowden’s impact on U.S. policy is yet to be seen. Interestingly, the NSA debate may foster some non-traditional political alliances—between tech giants and civil liberties groups; between far-left progressives and libertarian conservatives. Privacy advocates are calling for stringent overhauls of the NSA, whereas entrenched members of the intelligence community (IC) back more general reforms like ‘better oversight’ and ‘enhanced accountability.’ The debate will continue, as both sides attempt to balance practicality and constitutionality; but both parties agree on one thing—reigning in the abuse of power. In light of the dozen cases of “willful abuses of power by NSA analysts,” the last thing the United States needs is another J. Edgar Hoover.
Adam Clark Estes says it best in Gizmodo: “[One] year later, Edward Snowden is an international celebrity, and the United States is internationally infamous for its profoundly invasive and technologically advanced surveillance practices. The American public is more cynical about how the government treats privacy issues, and the president is a little bit more outspoken in talking about how the intelligence community works. But only a little. [...] All those changes are pretty subjective, though. When it comes down to the specific, measurable impact of the Snowden leaks on the country and the world, you have to wade into the weeds a little bit, and separate out the difference between more insight and actual change. As it turns out, the world today looks a lot the world before Snowden. Just angrier and more confused.”
[For an in-depth discussion of future NSA reforms, see this Brookings debate held on the one-year anniversary of the Snowden revelations—June 5, 2014. The debate features Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) and Julian Sanchez (CATO Institute) on the “fundamental reform” side and Carrie Cordero (director of National Security Studies at Georgetown Law) and John “Chris” Inglis (former NSA deputy director) on the “measured reform” side.]
