Introduction
As
we continue to march forward with advances in technology, technology continues
to cause friction between privacy and security. In addition, as technology
becomes more easily available and accessible, it also becomes more pervasive.
This pervasiveness allow governments to find new and creative way to police its
citizens by snooping on their communications. In addition, governments have
taken steps to enact laws which gives them seemingly unfettered access to their
citizens communications and hence their data. One such program which was implemented
as a result of these new laws in the United States (US), is PRISM. These new
policing measures are currently the primary contributing factors in the debate
of security vs privacy.
PRISM
Background
PRISM
is an internal US Government computer system which was created in 2008 by the
US Congress. It’s primary purpose is to facilitate the authorized collection of
foreign intelligence information via electronic sources and through various
electronic communication service providers (Director of National Intelligence, 2013). This program has resulted in numerous
lawsuits which challenges not only its authenticity but also its infringement
on the privacy of US citizens. According to (Director of National Intelligence, 2013), the objective of
this program is to acquire foreign intelligence information on targets located
outside of the US. However, the PRISM program through top secret court orders,
has compelled companies like Verizon to turn over millions of US customers data
(Greenwald & MacAskill, 2013). In addition, the
collection of intelligence – be it accidental or deliberate – such as email,
voice, text, video chats, etc., from a number of US citizens via companies such
as Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple, etc., contributes significantly to debate
that PRISM encroaches on the privacy of US citizens (Gellman & Lindeman, 2013). The biggest concern
and threat to privacy is the National Security Agency’s (NSA) ability to obtain
information without having to request them from the service provider or without
the need for a court order (Greenwald & MacAskill, 2013) along with the
Government’s threat to apply significant financial penalties to organization
that refuses to cooperate in providing data about their users, as was done to
Yahoo (Rusche, 2014).
The
Need For Security
Providing security for its citizens is one of the top
priority for any government and the US Government is no different. The US Government
through institutions such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strive
to protect the homeland and ensure it is safe, secure and resilient against terrorist
and other hazards (dhs.gov, 2012). In addition organization’s such as the
National Security Agency (NSA) confronts the challenges of preventing
adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security
information (nsa.gov, 2011). The world as we know it at present is
a very dangerous place. On September 11, 2011, terrorist executed the worst
ever attack in US history, flying 2 planes into the World Trade Center
Buildings, causing the deaths of 2,977 people (cnn.com, 2015). On April 15, 2013 two brothers,
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev detonated 2 bombs at the Boston
Marathon, killing 3 and wounding 260 people (History.com Staff, 2014). These two examples support
the case for some of the measures governments may need to put in place to
prevent these types of activities. Governments should not always be in a
reactive mode but instead should be more proactive. As a result the need for
programs such as PRISM becomes more relevant providing they do not encroach on
the privacy of citizens. These programs allow governments through institutions
such as DHS and NSA to be proactive by collecting intelligence which gives the
relevant insights allowing it to make decisions which may ultimately prevent
attacks such as the ones above.
The
Need For Privacy
The development and advancement of
technology makes the argument for privacy much greater. As stated by (Brenner, 2010) “Ways may . . . be
developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers,
can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose . . . the
most intimate occurrences of the home.” The aforementioned, shows that unless
governments are kept in check, our privacy may be so eroded that we no longer
have any left. It is one thing to allow and or give the government through
agencies such as DHS and NSA the capabilities to protect us from harm which may
be perpetuated against us. However, it is also our responsibility to ensure
that the government does not exploit those privileges with the ultimate
objective of eroding our right to privacy. We should all care about privacy
even though privacy is not necessarily secrecy (Doctorow, 2013). If the government through its agencies
like DHS and or NSA were to retrieve information which suggest you did
something wrong, then these agencies may view everything else you do through
the lens of this data (Doctorow, 2013). If our privacy is taken away, then all
persons will become suspect. However, some persons will be more suspect than
others (Mery, 2005).
As a people, if we
need proof as to why we should take our privacy seriously, the case of David
Mery should serve as an absolute wake up call. David Mery was arrested and
charged under the UK Terrorism Act for suspicious behavior and public nuisance. This all stemmed from his behavior being
deemed suspicious by police after direct observation of him from watching the
CCTV system while he was in the London Subway. The charges were ultimately
dropped. However, even though the charges were dropped, the police were still
entitled to hold on to Mery’s fingerprints, DNA, anything gathered during the
investigations, photographs, interviewing tapes, etc. (Mery, 2005)
The biggest concern with this case is even though Mery was considered innocent
in the eyes of the law, he is also still guilty as a result of the law, as he
cannot now get his file wiped.
Legal
Challenges To PRISM
Legal means have always been used to challenge the
legality of laws and or programs which have been implemented by Governments.
PRISM has had its fair share of lawsuits which challenges various aspects of
the program. However, some of these lawsuits have been successful while others
have been unsuccessful. Yahoo’s unsuccessful bid to challenge the government
and the laws which supports PRISM on the grounds that it was unconstitutional
and overboard (Rusche, 2014) is evidence that it can be difficult to
win cases against the government. Once Yahoo lost their case, the government
added even more pressure to obtain the requested data by threatening to fine
Yahoo $250,000 per day with that amount doubling weekly. Similarly to Yahoo,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a law suit against the
PRISM program stating that it is unconstitutional (aclu.org, 2013). These lawsuits may end up providing
greater insight into the operation of the PRISM program. However, if the
government continues to threaten companies that refuses to comply, then the
program will always be viewed suspiciously.
Conclusion
In
a debate between security vs privacy, my choice will always be privacy. There
has been many instances in which I have seen and can clearly understand how and
why some persons can choose to believe any and everything that is produced by
the computer and or devices used for computing. While it is one thing for data
to be retrieved about us, when that data is considered to be retrieved without
our permission and encroaches on my privacy that should be of greater concern.
More importantly, how that data is used should be our biggest fear. The problem
with using this data is not only its usage but its ultimate interpretation by
the personnel entrusted with it. Therefore it is our responsibility to ensure
that we take all measures available to guard our privacy and in the process
reduce the amount of information governments through their agencies such as DHS
and NSA can obtain from and about us.
It is clearly understood and
expected that the government will need to collect information to proactively
protect its citizens. In collecting this data, the government should be able to
identify when it may be going beyond its reach and thus encroaching on our
privacy or breaching our constitutional rights. Because governments seldom
considers our privacy first when focusing on securing its citizens, it is the
citizens’ responsibility to keep the government actions in check. Unless this
is done, the government will continue marching forward enacting laws which
encroaches on our privacy and after a while we may be at a stage at which all
our privacy has been eroded. Ultimately, as it was asked by (Mery, 2005),
“Isn't a state that keeps files on innocent persons a police state?”
References
aclu.org. (2013, June 11). ACLU Files Lawsuit
Challenging Constitutionality of NSA Phone Spying Program. Retrieved from
aclu.org:
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program?redirect=national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program
Brenner, S. (2010). Cybercrime, Criminal Threats
from Cyberspace. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.
cnn.com. (2015, March 27). September 11th Fast
Facts. Retrieved from cnn.com: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11-anniversary-fast-facts/
dhs.gov. (2012, December 17). Our Mission.
Retrieved from dhs.gov: http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission
Director of National Intelligence. (2013). Facts
on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Washington, DC 20511.
Doctorow, C. (2013, June 14). The NSA's Prism:
why we should care . Retrieved from theguardian.com:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/14/nsa-prism
Gellman, B., & Lindeman, T. (2013, June 29). Inner
workings of a top-secret spy program. Retrieved from
http://apps.washingtonpost.com:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/inner-workings-of-a-top-secret-spy-program/282/
Greenwald, G., & MacAskill, E. (2013, June 7). NSA
Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others. Retrieved
from theguardian.com:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
History.com Staff. (2014). Boston Marathon
Bombings. Retrieved from history.com: http://www.history.com/topics/boston-marathon-bombings
Mery, D. (2005, September 22). Suspicious
behaviour on the tube . Retrieved from theguardian.com:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/22/terrorism.july7
nsa.gov. (2011, April 15). Mission. Retrieved
from nva.gov: https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml
Rusche, D. (2014, September 12). Yahoo $250,000
daily fine over NSA data refusal was set to double 'every week' .
Retrieved from theguardian.com:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal
theusconstitution.org. (n.d.). Current Cases.
Retrieved from theusconstitution.org:
http://theusconstitution.org/cases/current
No comments:
Post a Comment