Persuasive Essay

     Birds chirp, fish swim, the sun rises, the sun sets- the world has constants, things that have been true since the dawn of time. Surveillance was never a constant, privacy had been an innate human right, it was a constant humanity was used to. Then, that all changed. A nation thrust into the throes of chaos, changing faster than anyone could have imagined. September 11th, 2001 is a date that will live on through history. A catastrophic and tragic attack on the United States and its people, laying low the dignity and security of the nation. This attack left the county reeling, clawing at any last shred of security and safety- which is where the Patriot Act came in. The Patriot Act was the death knell for privacy, a legal structure for the NSA to monitor and surveil their own citizens under the guise of national security. This final toll of the bell marked the end of an era, pushing aside the princeps of privacy for the age of inescapable surveillance. The evolution of surveillance has sped up since 9/11, with well intentioned government organizations pushing jurisdiction too far, in hopes of helping a fearful nation’s desire for safety.

     When the internet first came around, it was the new final frontier, an unexplored and untamed wilderness full of wonder and ripe with potential. The internet was not anyone’s domain, nor was it closely watched by governments or most people, who regarded it as a passing fancy. It could serve all the purposes that were wanted of it at the time, and did not spend any time gathering data or recording records. In the early days of the internet “The cypherpunks set out to protect it from censorship, surveillance, and other forms of untoward state control” (Gellman 7). The “cypherpunks” (a large portion of early internet users, who became skilled in cryptography) saw what it was, a tool to unite the world and expedite communication, using an impartial and secret middleman.

     The desire to keep the internet as free and open as it was led many towards trying to protect it. Such people set to encrypting data or flushing website’s data collections, high ticket items for governments particularly keen on keeping track of people. Cryptography was a powerful thing, and “With tools like these, anyone could read and write and meet on the internet without censorship or fear, cloaked in the elegant mathematics of cryptography” (Gellman 8). An encrypted internet was a safe internet- where data and information was not being shipped off to some faceless database for government use. Encryption also stopped attempts at censorship, leaving the internet a hub for talking freely about any topic needed.

      But that would not last, as  “The post 9/11 American veneration of security above all else has created a climate particularly conducive to abuses of power” (Greenwald 3). When the people feel unsafe or threatened, they look towards their government for safety and reassurance. The government attempted to fulfill its purpose of saving a frightened people when they pushed the Patriot Act into law. The Patriot Act was a bill passed to expand the provisions of national security to counteract terrorism. The Act’s goal was to be scaffolding for all security and law enforcement agencies to pass laws and rules they deemed necessary for the sake of the state. However, the Patriot Act could also support itself, by innately granting the FBI, CIA and NSA the right to heavily monitor any individual or company suspected of being at all involved in terrorism. This often took the form of following certain individuals on the internet, which was now a frequent gathering place for terror groups.

     Governments, though well intentioned, would eventually begin to interfere with the interactions on the internet, understandably seeing it as a potential security risk. To combat this potential issue, security programs were being fired off in quick succession and agencies were created to oversee them. Although, this quick succession could be attributed to needing to make up for lost time. The most important part of considering their actions is to understand “One aspect of the lawful illegality of surveillance is the conflicting reactions of citizens and authorities when programs are revealed” (Austin 1). 

     Enter Edward Snowden, a computer savant turned low level systems manager for the CIA/NSA. For years, Snowden had just managed software, worked out bugs and kept a watchful eye over the government’s data servers. All that changed when he received a promotion, and gained clearance to servers containing information on millions of people, both in the U.S and abroad. It was not just stuff you’d expect- like name, birthday, where they live and such- it was much more. Records of everything they did online, who they talked to, who their family was, and audio recordings of thousands of calls. Whether he was horrified or intrigued is unclear, but all that is known is he loaded hundreds of gigabytes worth of thumb drives and storage devices with government documents- presentations, manuals, outlines, proposals and more. With such volatile information, he fled the country to Hawaii, and then again to Hong Kong, and finally, to Russia, where he remains to this day. It would be hard to imagine such an unimaginable burden, holding the key to changing the concept of surveillance forever.

      Snowden knew this, and “During this interview from a hotel in Hong Kong, Snowden revealed himself to the world as the source of ongoing leaks of classified information. ‘This is something that’s not our place to decide,’ Snowden said, explaining his decision. ‘The public needs to decide if these programs and policies are right or wrong ’” (Edgar 4). It took public outlash to decide the legality of what had been done, and that is exactly what had happened. The country was outraged, a once safe haven brought low by monitoring and surveillance systems they had never known about. Everything they had been doing, wrong or right, was recorded, kept, in a hoard of information and records the government would rarely touch.

     “The government was in possession of the necessary intelligence but had failed to understand or act on it. The solution that it then embarked on- to collect everything en masse- has done nothing to fix that failure” (Gellman 204). It was not just the fact that they had this information that made people angry, it was the fact that they had failed to use it to benefit anyone but themselves and the private sector. To put it in perspective, the NSA had names and information on multiple 9/11 hijackers and their plans, but failed to use that knowledge to stop the attacks. 

     In an attempt to fill the void left in the country’s confidence after the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act was guided through the government until it was passed. Well intentioned or not, it had become the backing for multiple data collection and surveillance programs. These programs are many, but there are some more noteworthy ones. The first of these being PRISM, a program which allowed the government to access data servers of major internet providers, such as Verizon, T-Mobile or AT&T, and extract any forms of user data saved in them- such as phone records, pictures and emails. Next is Stellar Wind, a program used to monitor all calls with at least one end in the United States, recording and storing them. The third major domestic program is EvilOlive, which collects almost everything- what pages someone visits, favorite websites, friends, phone numbers and contacts (Szoldra).

      Once private internet histories or phone records were now open season, as “Section 215 lowered the standard the government needed to meet in order to obtain ‘business records,’ from probable cause to relevance. This meant the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in order to obtain highly sensitive and invasive documents- such as medical histories, banking transactions or phone records, needed to demonstrate only that those documents were ‘relevant’ to an investigation” (Greenwald 28). 

     Additionally, the Patriot Act directly backed wiretapping domestic and international phones, and indirectly empowered the NSA to expand their own surveillance programs both internationally and domestically. The government could easily gain access to highly private documents, all from just claiming their relevance, leaving no one's sensitive information safe, and “Moreover, the post 9/11 American veneration of security above all else has created a climate particularly conducive to abuses of power” (Greenwald 3). Alleged abuses of power came in proverbial legions, although they did not march right out of the gate and into the public eye. When they did finally become unveiled, it was over for the NSA and their carefully crafted series of programs, as civilian outlash drowned out any potential defense.

      But these programs were mostly domestic, which made “the exposure of a global surveillance enterprise operated by the United States and its so-called ‘Five Eyes’ partners--the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand--and linked with the security agencies of most Western countries” the biggest bombshell (“Edward Snowden Exposes”). But, the United States was not the only country that was awe struck by these leaks, it was a global scale of exposure. Although the Snowden leaks were less centric on foreign countries, what little there was about the Five Eyes Intelligence Agency had faltered faith across the globe. Good intentions can go wrong, and that’s exactly what happened with the Patriot Act. It was intended to seal gaps in security, to keep the United States safe from terrorism. However, this beacon of hope has been twisted, had its phrasing manipulated to defend hidden and immoral surveillance programs.

     National security is a fickle thing, an inconsistent and untamable beast of a concept. The surveillance industry boomed after 9/11, with government enforcement, under the guise of protecting the nation. Protecting the nation did not start or stop at security, instead, it was a tool to pass secret programs to invade the privacy of citizens without anyone knowing. Both the evolution of surveillance has changed since 9/11, a once slight and secure system of security accelerated to mass collection and information hoarding. Surprisingly enough, the Snowden revelations have made the NSA more transparent, accountable, and more protective of privacy. Surprisingly, the reforms have also made the NSA more effective” (Edgar 5). Though the current transparency of the NSA does not excuse their years of undermining the people’s confidence and faith with elaborate schemes. For something so concealed to crash down would take some aggressive and drastic- and that’s exactly what Edward Snowden did.

 

 

Bibliography

 

Austin, Lisa M. “Lawful Illegality: What Snowden Has Taught Us about the Legal Infrastructure of the Surveillance State.” Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era, edited by Michael Geist, University of Ottawa Press, 2015, pp. 103–26. Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.

 

 Edgar, Timothy. Beyond Snowden: Privacy, Mass Surveillance, and the Struggle to Reform the NSA. Brookings Institution Press, 2017.

 

"Edward Snowden Exposes PRISM Program." Historic U.S. Events, Gale, 2015. Gale In Context: High School, Accessed 16 Sept. 2022.

 

Gellman, Barton. Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State. Penguin Publishing Group, May 19, 2020.

 

Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the U.S Surveillance State. Henry Holt and Company, 2014.

 

Szoldra, Paul. This is Everything Edward Snowden Revealed in One Year of Unprecedented Top-Secret Leaks, Business Insider, 2016. Accessed 16 Sep. 2022