Unit 2 Project 3/29/2016

“What the government wants is something they never had before. They want total awareness. The question is, is that something we should be allowing?” In a world where technology is increasing at an exponential rate, the amount of personal privacy is decreasing just as quickly. For many it can be seen as a necessary measure to ensure the safety of the public where all forms of terrorism are on the front of many nations’ minds. In such a broad technological world, drawing a line between collecting information for the safety of the public versus drawing information only to have collect is not an easy one. This gray area where governments feel the need to have information that is needed but doesn’t infringe on personal rights in the process is very important in the direction of personal freedom.

Edward Snowden, a former member of the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States of America, has two distinct portrayals in the media for his disclosure of information on the tactics and methods the United States government uses in everyday operation. In some eyes, he has been transformed into an internet cult sensation that has been a hero in the fight for personal privacy. A quick Google search yields an official White House petition yielding over 160,000 signatures that states “Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed”. However, not everyone shares this opinion. Words like coward and even traitor have been used by the media. In order to understand this polarizing divide in opinion, it is necessary to look back on the timeline that brought Edward Snowden into infamy.

In April 2013, a PowerPoint presentation was leaked to the media. Contained in the slides of the PowerPoint were details of a massive data collection led by the United States that had been backed by many large big name internet companies.  Data stated that the NSA collected nearly 3 billion pieces of intelligence inside the U.S. in February 2013 alone. It explained how the number one source of data, Prism, was able to provide the government with information ranging from E-mail, chat with video and voice capability, videos, photos, shared data, File transfers even a bolded statement stating “Special Requests”. Even more disturbing, many trusted companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and even Apple were the major providers of many of this information. It was not until June 9^th, 2013 when Edward Snowden’s identity became public. At this point in his life, he was believed hiding in Hong Kong or Russia.

During this time, information and privacy became a major topic of debate in the media. Immediately, the government agencies took this disclosure of data as a major national security issue. Only a short time later in June 14, 2013, Snowden was charged by the United States Justice Department with “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person”. Edward Snowden was now a criminal in the eyes of the United States Government.

Edward Snowden was only a precursor to the future of privacy debates in America. Despite potentially putting armed service men at risk through his leaks on classified data, which was a major focus in the media, he created a shift in public thought and sparked discussion on to what extent the government should be in our technological lives. However there is a larger problem than simply data collection.

One of the main points of discussion in pro privacy groups is how the information is actually handled. In the September of 2012, the United States embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by terrorists. During this numerous Americans lost their lives, including the United States Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens. Initially reported through the state department and media as backlash from an Anti-Muslim video circulating the internet, information came out that it was possibly a premeditated attack. As time passed, more information was released that showed that the government may have had information and data to suggest a possible upcoming terrorist attack but failed to act on it. As a result, the government used the video as a scapegoat for its failure to respond with more security and protection for the Ambassador.

The public needs to be able to understand and recognize what rights their government has in their personal lives. Currently it is becoming increasingly more difficult to understand and grasp the changes in data privacy that are occurring. In a recent interview with Edward Snowden, he described the changes by saying “Many of the changes that are happening are invisible because they’re happening at the engineering level. Google encrypted the backhaul communications between their data centers to prevent passive monitoring.” To many this would be seen as technological garble but to Snowden these are small steps in the road to privacy. Does the government really need that information?

 On May 13, 2015, the House of Representatives passed the USA Freedom Act by a vote if 338-88. Shortly after, President Obama signed the bill into law on June 2, 2015. According to the Judiciary Committee, the bill ends and prohibits bulk collection of all records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, prevents government overreach and allows for the challenges of national security letter gag orders. This was considered one of the major laws regarding collection of data in the United States. The law was met with mixed reviews.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky stated "I cannot support passage of the so-called USA Freedom Act," he said. "It does not enhance the privacy protections of American citizens, and it surely undermines American security by taking one more tool from our war fighters, in my view, at exactly the wrong time." On the other side of the conversation, ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. "This is the most important surveillance reform bill since 1978, and its passage is an indication that Americans are no longer willing to give the intelligence agencies a blank check” What exactly did this bill do in terms of surveillance reform?

In terms of protection of privacy for the everyday American, it did not do much. The government still can access your data with little to no restriction. Despite this, private companies are becoming more aware and conscious of data and the importance of privacy. One of the newest developments in privacy came just very recently, after another terrorist attack took place on American soil. On December 2^nd, 2015 an attack at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California left 14 people killed and 22 seriously injured. This was the result of a mass shooting an attempting bombing by a married couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. This couple had been living in the area for some time and had been described by the FBI as “radicalized over time”. The husband had posted and committed to jihadism through private messages over the internet. Out of this horrific tragedy came a new direction in the role of government and privacy.

Apple, one of the most influential private companies in the world and producer of the iPhone, became engaged in a legal debate regarding a recovered phone from one of the terrorists. In an attempt to gain more information about the attack, the government reached out to Apple in order to help unlock the phone. The phone, which was encrypted preventing data from being recovered, was only able to be unlocked by Apple. Apple refused stating that they could not undermine the security of the applications and that a government had never set a precedent for such actions. As a result, Apple opposed the order and faced a judge issued court order to unlock the phone.

Eventually, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to unlock the phone through backdoor methods through collaboration with third parties. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook released a statement on their view on privacy stating “Finally, I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will.” This is a very important change in policy from private companies. From the start of the modern technological age, private companies have for the most part been on board with the decisions governments have made in terms of what is best for the public and how their data is handled. This strong stance against the demands made by the United States government have set a precedent that supports the personal user’s privacy more than the governments need for their information.

Many private companies are beginning to emphasize their privacy policies in order to have a more open conversation with the public in terms of their methods of collecting data and how they use them. Microsoft recently changed their privacy policy to further clarify how they use your personal data. It states “Microsoft uses the data we collect to provide you the services we offer, which includes using data to improve and personalize your experiences. We also may use the data to communicate with you, for example, informing you about your account, security updates and product information. And we use data to help make the ads we show you more relevant to you. However, we do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files to target ads to you.” This is a stark change since the first discussion of Microsoft in their role with Edward Snowden and the Prism collection program. Their policy goes on to say that they do share your data as well. However there are undoubtedly changes that still need to be made. Yahoo’s privacy policy states “Your personal information may be transferred to countries other than your own to process and store data in accordance with our Privacy Policy and to provide you with products and services. Some of these countries may not have the same data protection safeguards as the country where you reside”. This does not appear to be a very good way to ensure data is protected.

In the end, one of the major keys to developing and protecting privacy rights stems from knowledge of what information is being collected, to what extent, and how it is being used. In a world where increased technology allows for more information to be delivered faster than ever it is essential that is it moderated. With this moderation comes responsibility however, and in order to maintain a line between safety and privacy an open discussion between the public, government and private companies must remain the first priority. 

References

"A Timeline Of Edward Snowden's Life". Washington Post. N.p., 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

"NSA Surveillance Reform Bill Now Law". Cbsnews.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

"Pardon Edward Snowden | We The People: Your Voice In Our Government". Petitions.whitehouse.gov. N.p., 2013. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

"USA Freedom Act Archives - House Judiciary Committee". House Judiciary Committee. N.p., 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

Cole, Matthew, and Mike Brunker. NBC News. N.p., 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.

Gellman, Barton. "Edward Snowden, After Months Of NSA Revelations, Says His Mission’S Accomplished". Washington Post. N.p., 2016. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.