“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” President Obama, 2009
“I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.” President Obama, 2013
Attitudes towards Edward Snowden and his actions tend to fall into three camps. There are those that believe he is a hero for starting a national dialogue on the role of government in monitoring and collecting information on its citizens and noncitizens abroad. A second group does not think of him as a hero, but consider him simply a whistleblower for revealing secrets that he believed to be egregious. Finally, there are those who believe he has done grave harm to U.S. national security interests and should be punished.
Given that I spent over a decade and a half in the CIA’s operations directorate and went on to co-found a leading company in the private intelligence and security space, you can likely imagine in which camp I pitch my tent. I believe Edward Snowden a dysfunctional young man who did not get the respect he believed he deserved from his various supervisors and, under the self-righteous guise of following his conscience, chose to betray U.S. national security interests.
In a classic case of failing upwards, once he obtained his security clearances to work as a guard for the National Security Agency (NSA), he found that those clearances made him an attractive candidate for other positions as he moved from job to job. That is one of the problems with the world of government contracting—the clearance process can be lengthy and costly, and any individual already holding clearances automatically is more attractive as a hire by the ecosystem of companies that feed off the government. That ecosystem is massive.
Snowden’s story has, of course, focused the spotlight not only on the NSA’s authorized and legally-papered surveillance programs, but also in a broader context on the issues of government data collection, the tradeoffs between security and privacy, and the ability of the public to guard against an overreaching government. This does not make him a hero; it simply makes him a law-breaking traitor whose actions were the catalyst for another discussion on privacy versus security.
However, I will be the first to argue that we should welcome and constantly encourage public evaluation and discussion of privacy versus security concerns. Having peeked behind the curtain for years, I believe I have a very good sense of the U.S. intelligence community and its relationship with the executive branch, the public, and our elected officials. I have great confidence in the government’s ability, or at least intent, to do the right thing while still being wary of giving any administration too much leeway.
Can the government abuse its authority? Can efforts to provide national security overreach and intrude unnecessarily into our private lives? Can information be misused? Without a doubt. That is why an engaged public and a vigilant and inquisitive Congress are necessary to guard against abuses of authority and access.
Unfortunately, the American public tends to lurch distractedly from one event to another, like a kitten focusing on whatever shiny object happens to be in front of it. As a nation, we suffer from collective Attention Deficit Disorder, rarely staying on topic long enough to understand the complexity of the issue and almost never following through with meaningful actions.
I blame technology for the general inability of the public to stay focused on key issues and concerns. Thanks to cell phones, 24-hour news feeds, Twitter, reddit, Facebook, we have an expectation and appetite for immediate information gratification. But we take smaller bites and get filled up quicker than ever before—and then we are off devouring the next hot topic or scandal.
More than likely, the current public “outrage” over learning that the NSA is able to collect citizens phone records will dissipate as soon as the next Congressman or Senator is caught texting pictures of his legislative package. Outrage burns hot and bright in America, but lasts only moments in real terms. Luckily for character-challenged politicians, redemption is cheap and requires only the requisite time off camera and appropriate public mea culpas, preferably while standing next to your loving, albeit long-suffering, spouse.
When discussing the role of government and, in particular, the NSA revelations, I should note that I am by belief and desire a small government person. It would seem counterintuitive: believing in small government and at the same time being supportive of the NSA’s surveillance programs and the general need for law enforcement and the intelligence community to have access to metadata on citizens and non-citizens alike.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a best selling author and former Deputy Assistant U.S. Southern District Attorney well known in counter terrorism circles for having led the 1995 trial of Sheik Abdul Rahman and numerous co-conspirators, recently wrote in the National Review Online that small government principles and support of the NSA programs can go hand in hand:
“Those of us who have argued in favor of the NSA programs stress the following points:
- (1) Unlike the other things Leviathan does (but should not do), national security is the federal government’s ne plus ultra.
- (2) Americans do not have a Fourth Amendment privacy right to shield phone usage records that belong to a third-party, and non-Americans outside the U.S. do not have constitutional rights, period—not against data-collection or eavesdropping.
- (3) The absence of constitutional protections is not dispositive of any privacy question; it simply means that any additional privacy safeguards must be enacted by Congress, not by warping the Fourth Amendment.
- (4) The NSA programs operate under such a regimen of significant Congressionally-mandated safeguards: e.g., government may only collect data, it may not be inspected without court oversight, data must be purged every five years, etc.
- (5) The most important components of these safeguards are the principles of separation-of-powers and non-politicization of national security—i.e., there is extensive judicial and congressional oversight over the NSA’s data-collection; and even on the executive branch side, the data must be handled by specially trained intelligence agents, not political appointees.”
The era of big data really started with 9/11. In the aftermath of that horrific event, the intelligence community, in conjunction with law enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels, moved from a traditional “Need to Know” mindset to the new mantra of “Need to Share.” Or, in different terms, “Play Well With Others.”
Information collection efforts were ramped up domestically and abroad, while dependence on outside contractors and technology companies increased exponentially. The Holy Grail for intelligence and law enforcement officers looking to prevent the next 9/11, and for private sector companies looking to capitalize on this seismic shift in combating terror became how to store, analyze, and find the key operational leads and actionable intelligence hiding in an ever-increasing mountain of data. Incredulous members of the public ask how an Edward Snowden, or a Bradley Manning, type of situation could develop. I am not a mathematician, but I believe the answer is something like this; Amount of Data Collected × Number of Contractors Cleared to Access Data XYZ √Government Desire to Easily Share Data = Leaks.
We essentially walked into a perfect storm that allowed for Snowden, and Bradley Manning, to access vast amounts of information. Improvements in technology allowed for new and more efficient ways to collect data; 9/11 demanded that the U.S. government not only authorize, but also improve its collection efforts and the way in which that information is shared; and the increasing amount of data requires an ever-increasing number of people are given clearances to do something with that information.
The concern is not whether the government needs the ability to collect information. As Mr. McCarthy eloquently points out, what the NSA is collecting is different from what the government is “investigating”. Investigations require authorities, approvals and oversight. The collection of information is critical to efforts to prevent, minimize, or disrupt potential attacks.
What worries me is if the government can efficiently—and securely—collect and use that data to enhance our homeland defense efforts. I have confidence in the intent of our government, and in the checks and balances in place to guard against abuse. The caveat is that, as with many things, you should trust but verify on a regular basis.
I view this from an operational rather than a civil liberties or ethical perspective. I want to know that what we are doing is indeed geared towards making us safer. If the government is simply collecting information because we have the technical ability to do so, coupled with necessary legal authorities, only to let it sit in some dank virtual basement waiting for analysis someday, then we need to scale back our efforts. It is difficult enough to search through limited amounts of information looking for actionable leads and key linkages between suspects or events. When you get to the level of metadata, it is vastly more complicated.
And the risks, as Edward Snowden has made clear, are far greater.
Mike Baker is a regular contributor in the national and international media on intelligence, security, and counterterrorism issues. After a career spanning over fifteen years as a covert field operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Mike co-founded Diligence LLC and now oversees the company’s operations and growth throughout the Americas.
a global affairs media network
Edward Snowden and NSA Surveillance: Risks vs. Rewards
August 7, 2013
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” President Obama, 2009
“I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.” President Obama, 2013
Attitudes towards Edward Snowden and his actions tend to fall into three camps. There are those that believe he is a hero for starting a national dialogue on the role of government in monitoring and collecting information on its citizens and noncitizens abroad. A second group does not think of him as a hero, but consider him simply a whistleblower for revealing secrets that he believed to be egregious. Finally, there are those who believe he has done grave harm to U.S. national security interests and should be punished.
Given that I spent over a decade and a half in the CIA’s operations directorate and went on to co-found a leading company in the private intelligence and security space, you can likely imagine in which camp I pitch my tent. I believe Edward Snowden a dysfunctional young man who did not get the respect he believed he deserved from his various supervisors and, under the self-righteous guise of following his conscience, chose to betray U.S. national security interests.
In a classic case of failing upwards, once he obtained his security clearances to work as a guard for the National Security Agency (NSA), he found that those clearances made him an attractive candidate for other positions as he moved from job to job. That is one of the problems with the world of government contracting—the clearance process can be lengthy and costly, and any individual already holding clearances automatically is more attractive as a hire by the ecosystem of companies that feed off the government. That ecosystem is massive.
Snowden’s story has, of course, focused the spotlight not only on the NSA’s authorized and legally-papered surveillance programs, but also in a broader context on the issues of government data collection, the tradeoffs between security and privacy, and the ability of the public to guard against an overreaching government. This does not make him a hero; it simply makes him a law-breaking traitor whose actions were the catalyst for another discussion on privacy versus security.
However, I will be the first to argue that we should welcome and constantly encourage public evaluation and discussion of privacy versus security concerns. Having peeked behind the curtain for years, I believe I have a very good sense of the U.S. intelligence community and its relationship with the executive branch, the public, and our elected officials. I have great confidence in the government’s ability, or at least intent, to do the right thing while still being wary of giving any administration too much leeway.
Can the government abuse its authority? Can efforts to provide national security overreach and intrude unnecessarily into our private lives? Can information be misused? Without a doubt. That is why an engaged public and a vigilant and inquisitive Congress are necessary to guard against abuses of authority and access.
Unfortunately, the American public tends to lurch distractedly from one event to another, like a kitten focusing on whatever shiny object happens to be in front of it. As a nation, we suffer from collective Attention Deficit Disorder, rarely staying on topic long enough to understand the complexity of the issue and almost never following through with meaningful actions.
I blame technology for the general inability of the public to stay focused on key issues and concerns. Thanks to cell phones, 24-hour news feeds, Twitter, reddit, Facebook, we have an expectation and appetite for immediate information gratification. But we take smaller bites and get filled up quicker than ever before—and then we are off devouring the next hot topic or scandal.
More than likely, the current public “outrage” over learning that the NSA is able to collect citizens phone records will dissipate as soon as the next Congressman or Senator is caught texting pictures of his legislative package. Outrage burns hot and bright in America, but lasts only moments in real terms. Luckily for character-challenged politicians, redemption is cheap and requires only the requisite time off camera and appropriate public mea culpas, preferably while standing next to your loving, albeit long-suffering, spouse.
When discussing the role of government and, in particular, the NSA revelations, I should note that I am by belief and desire a small government person. It would seem counterintuitive: believing in small government and at the same time being supportive of the NSA’s surveillance programs and the general need for law enforcement and the intelligence community to have access to metadata on citizens and non-citizens alike.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a best selling author and former Deputy Assistant U.S. Southern District Attorney well known in counter terrorism circles for having led the 1995 trial of Sheik Abdul Rahman and numerous co-conspirators, recently wrote in the National Review Online that small government principles and support of the NSA programs can go hand in hand:
“Those of us who have argued in favor of the NSA programs stress the following points:
- (1) Unlike the other things Leviathan does (but should not do), national security is the federal government’s ne plus ultra.
- (2) Americans do not have a Fourth Amendment privacy right to shield phone usage records that belong to a third-party, and non-Americans outside the U.S. do not have constitutional rights, period—not against data-collection or eavesdropping.
- (3) The absence of constitutional protections is not dispositive of any privacy question; it simply means that any additional privacy safeguards must be enacted by Congress, not by warping the Fourth Amendment.
- (4) The NSA programs operate under such a regimen of significant Congressionally-mandated safeguards: e.g., government may only collect data, it may not be inspected without court oversight, data must be purged every five years, etc.
- (5) The most important components of these safeguards are the principles of separation-of-powers and non-politicization of national security—i.e., there is extensive judicial and congressional oversight over the NSA’s data-collection; and even on the executive branch side, the data must be handled by specially trained intelligence agents, not political appointees.”
The era of big data really started with 9/11. In the aftermath of that horrific event, the intelligence community, in conjunction with law enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels, moved from a traditional “Need to Know” mindset to the new mantra of “Need to Share.” Or, in different terms, “Play Well With Others.”
Information collection efforts were ramped up domestically and abroad, while dependence on outside contractors and technology companies increased exponentially. The Holy Grail for intelligence and law enforcement officers looking to prevent the next 9/11, and for private sector companies looking to capitalize on this seismic shift in combating terror became how to store, analyze, and find the key operational leads and actionable intelligence hiding in an ever-increasing mountain of data. Incredulous members of the public ask how an Edward Snowden, or a Bradley Manning, type of situation could develop. I am not a mathematician, but I believe the answer is something like this; Amount of Data Collected × Number of Contractors Cleared to Access Data XYZ √Government Desire to Easily Share Data = Leaks.
We essentially walked into a perfect storm that allowed for Snowden, and Bradley Manning, to access vast amounts of information. Improvements in technology allowed for new and more efficient ways to collect data; 9/11 demanded that the U.S. government not only authorize, but also improve its collection efforts and the way in which that information is shared; and the increasing amount of data requires an ever-increasing number of people are given clearances to do something with that information.
The concern is not whether the government needs the ability to collect information. As Mr. McCarthy eloquently points out, what the NSA is collecting is different from what the government is “investigating”. Investigations require authorities, approvals and oversight. The collection of information is critical to efforts to prevent, minimize, or disrupt potential attacks.
What worries me is if the government can efficiently—and securely—collect and use that data to enhance our homeland defense efforts. I have confidence in the intent of our government, and in the checks and balances in place to guard against abuse. The caveat is that, as with many things, you should trust but verify on a regular basis.
I view this from an operational rather than a civil liberties or ethical perspective. I want to know that what we are doing is indeed geared towards making us safer. If the government is simply collecting information because we have the technical ability to do so, coupled with necessary legal authorities, only to let it sit in some dank virtual basement waiting for analysis someday, then we need to scale back our efforts. It is difficult enough to search through limited amounts of information looking for actionable leads and key linkages between suspects or events. When you get to the level of metadata, it is vastly more complicated.
And the risks, as Edward Snowden has made clear, are far greater.
Mike Baker is a regular contributor in the national and international media on intelligence, security, and counterterrorism issues. After a career spanning over fifteen years as a covert field operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Mike co-founded Diligence LLC and now oversees the company’s operations and growth throughout the Americas.
