There seems to be new details emerging everyday on the case of Edward Snowden, a former government contractor currently on the run after stealing information about the National Security Agency. The most recent development according to NBC News, is that Snowden obtained files by electronically impersonating other NSA officials. Snowden downloaded 20,000 documents before fleeing from Hawaii to Hong Kong on May 20.
According to NBC News, “Snowden’s documents became the basis for a series of articles in The Guardian and The Washington Post detailing the extent of the U.S. government’s collection of data and metadata on emails and phone calls.” While Snowden currently has asylum in Russia, he has been charged with theft and has violated the Espionage Act. The U.S. has tried to negotiate with Russia and China to relinquish Snowden into U.S. custody for prosecution.
One of the first questions that come to mind in such a case is whether Snowden was right to do what he did. Before I am willing to give an answer, I want to look at both sides of the argument. One of the first articles published after Snowden fled the U.S. was about the NSA collecting phone records from Verizon. According to The Guardian, the order made by the NSA “requires Verizon on a ‘daily, ongoing basis’ to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both between the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries.”
As a Verizon customer and as a person who does not care for others probing into my business, the NSA made a disgusting choice. The Guardian also notes, “the communication records of millions of U.S. citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing.” Using this method, I would not be surprised if the NSA found suspicious activity or even captured some criminals, but I do not like the idea of being treated like an enemy.
The NSA also had the Prism program, which enabled them access to the systems of Internet powerhouses like Google, Apple and Facebook. This Prism program, according to The Guardian, “allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats.” There is somebody working for the NSA who is probably watching me look up articles to gather information to write this article. Somebody at the NSA has seen the music you listen to, the favorite websites you frequent and the emails you sent to your boss.
While I doubt anyone at the NSA will care if you are looking up Game of Thrones gifs on Tumblr, millions of people send intimate details – love letters, awkward medical information, deep secrets – to people they trust. The idea of some random person knowing such details is unnerving.
On the other hand, think about the Boston Marathon bombing and the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary and in Aurora. What if the NSA found out about these attacks before they happened because of the information they acquired? Maybe there are attacks that were prevented because of this and we do not even know it.
Also, think of all the information the NSA must deal with on a daily basis. They are accessing the information of millions of people. Even if someone at the NSA did find out some embarrassing information about you, whether you have lice or you are into bondage porn, there are probably thousands of other people with similar embarrassing health problems or sexual cravings. So many people are being searched that you become anonymous, unless they find criminal activity of course.
In terms of both the NSA and Snowden, it becomes a case of whether the ends justify the means. Is it okay for the NSA to go through our private information as long as they capture potential criminals? Is it okay that Snowden broke the law in order to expose the NSA’s surveillance?
I do not think I can give my full support for either side. I can understand why both sides did what they did. The NSA wants to stop criminals before they can commit a crime, but they end up invading the privacy of others in the process. Snowden called out the NSA for their invasion of privacy, but Snowden had to break the law in order to do it. I do not think a better solution to the problem existed for either side at this point. As such, the NSA felt as if they had no choice but to be invasive parasites in order to ensure our safety. In turn, Snowden felt he had no other option but to break the law in order to expose the NSA’s surveillance. Government and national security are not the cleanest and most morally correct jobs. I only wish that we did not have to live in a world where such conflicts exist.
Jake Koniszewski can be reached at john.koniszewski@spartans.ut.edu