Letter to the EFF regarding NSA Wiretapping
Below is a copy of a letter I sent to the EFF regarding their lawsuit against AT&T for their involvement in the NSA wiretapping program.
I just visited the EFF website and saw a large banner on the front page denouncing AT&T's involvement in the NSA wiretapping discussed in the press over the last couple of months. I am a big fan of privacy and an avid user of privacy tools such as TOR and PGP (and/or GPG). I am also a supporter of the EFF; I recently donated as part of the blogger's rights campaign - something I feel very strongly about.
I am concerned about the EFF's involvement in this for a couple of reasons. While I do see an issue of privacy in a government that is allowed to listen to the phone conversations of it's citizens without checks and balances, I do not believe that statement encompasses the situation at hand. Given that our country is at constant danger from a threat of major loss of life due to a terrorist act, it makes sense that we might have to give up some of our liberties in order to preserve our society. The idea that we can stop terrorists while keeping ALL of the many freedoms we enjoy in our society demonstrates quite a bit of naivety. Besides this, it is not a cut-and-dry issue that the executive branch does not have the power to exercise such methods during times such as this. Other presidents have utilized similar reaches of power - even in times of peace. Back in the nineties the Internet was rife with buzz about projects such as Echelon and Carnivore and talk of how the government was eavesdropping on ALL of our phone conversations and electronic transmissions not just the ones to or from terrorists - all this prior to 9/11. Franklin Roosevelt imprisoned thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans during WWII. He didn't spy on them, he IMPRISONED them. And this was accepted by the American people because they understood the danger of Japanese spies. I think this demonstrates the problem of dealing with threats from small pockets of enemies on our own soil due to the nature of our open society. Our freedom is truly a double-edged sword in this regard. And that was really what made Sept 11 such an easy feat to accomplish by such a small number of hateful people. This NSA program targets people who are specifically communicating with known terrorists for the purpose of gathering intelligence to prevent atrocities like what happened on September 11, 2001. If ANY citizen in the United States is carrying on conversations with known terrorists overseas I not only support the government's unfettered eavesdropping of those conversations, I expect it to do so. I see nothing in the EFF's stance on this issue that addresses the potential danger removing this power would present to the American people. Hindering the administration with hundreds or thousands of wiretap warrants presents a serious question of necessity and is not really the kind of answer the American people expect nor deserve given the threat at hand. If and when the next attack comes there will be a wave of questioning of that administration as to how something like that could happen again and how we didn't know ahead of time. If this NSA program is killed or altered in such a way as to bog it down with bureaucracy and they miss advanced notice of an attack that is successful that would have otherwise likely been caught ahead of time, then the blood of those Americans killed in such an attack can be placed SQUARELY on groups like the EFF that supported the program's demise. This issue began as - and continues to be - an issue more of partisan politics than a serious threat to the individual liberties of average citizens. In no way do I think the government of the United States is going to spy on MY conversations as a result of this program. I find it particularly disturbing that the EFF apparently jumps to this conclusion. I have never thought, until now, that the EFF was a partisan organization but the stance the EFF has taken on this issue raises my suspicions that they are not as unbiased with regards to party politics as I previously thought. Now I still support the EFF's efforts in many other areas so I will not as of yet remove the links to the EFF from my blog. My view of the EFF as a whole is certainly tarnished after discovering their stance on this NSA program and their very presence in such a highly partisan issue. Especially when the threat to our individual liberties really isn't at question at the heart of this issue.
I suppose it is unlikely that the EFF will alter their stance on this issue regardless of what is said against it. Despite this, I find it necessary for me to voice my harsh disapproval of this lawsuit against AT&T and any other efforts by the EFF to undermine the actions taken by the United States Government to responsibly handle the current threat to our society. Further actions by the EFF in this direction will only serve to cause me to remove my financial support of the EFF and instead of speaking out FOR it, I will speak out against it.
If I send you my money I do so under the expectations that my money will be handled in an effective and responsible way and used for causes I believe in - not used to erode what little safety we have in our open society. Now not only is the EFF going to be burning resources over this case, but AT&T will have to spend thousands to defend itself in court and perhaps pay out a large settlement - a settlement that will inevitably be shouldered by its customers in the end. What is the EFF trying to accomplish by this? This is not responsible use of the money I have sent. Not over this issue. I would much rather see efforts applied to copyright reform or the protection of the openness of the Internet than used in such a recklessly political manner.
-Travis
posted by Unknown at
12:51 AM
4 Comments:
The example of imprisoning Japanese-Americans during WWII is a good example. It is something we, as a country, very much regret doing. We?ve made countless apologies and even financial reparations. I support EFF for standing up against this on a smaller level. I believe that if they (we) don?t we?ll eventually look back on it in a similar (but not as bright) light as our actions with the Japanese.
What makes America special is that it is a country built on freedom. This is the principal we need to be patriotic and ready to spill blood for. If people have to die to protect this freedom, then they would only be following the examples of our founding fathers. If we remove our freedoms because we?re not patriotic enough to face a little blood, then we?ve really sold out and become a country that?s just a bunch of wimpy, greedy, generally bad people.
Very well said Tom and thank you for the comment.
I have to say that I very much understand the value of our many freedoms in this country. And this issue is one that I wrestled with at first for the very reasons spelled out in your second paragraph. I believe that our freedoms are worth defending and dying for.
At the same time, I realize the threat terrorism poses to every aspect of our society. Not only to our relative safety that we take so much for granted but also to our wealth and prosperity amongst other things. We saw what happened to the airline industry in the wake of 9/11 and the resulting impact that had on our nation's economy. Imagine a series of terrorist events over say a 12 month period that gradually destabilizes our entire economy. Imagine the far-reaching impact this would have on the average citizen. This is certainly something that is within the realm of possibility with or without NSA wiretapping. But I like to think that the government is at least doing SOMETHING to keep it from happening. The fact that we've had no 9/11 style attacks since that day in 2001 is a testament that they are doing something - and I think programs like this NSA program are probably why.
I do understand the point that allowing the executive branch of government to wiretap a US citizen without the check-and-balance of a judicial warrant has on our individual freedoms. But I look at history and I understand that these types of things are valid and necessary from time to time so that we can preserve the nation as a whole. There is an importance to that which I think the founding fathers would understand and agree with. We are indeed one from many.
The caveat to all this is that I only agree with the administration's use of these measures due to the following:
o The measures are temporary.
o The warrantless wiretaps are done ONLY where one end is overseas AND with a known or suspected terrorist (ie. not the President's political enemies etc)
o The administration continues to provide details of the program to select members of Congress and the Judiciary
Should any of those details change, my support of the use of this program would likely change as well.
I do not think that this program would somehow expand to the point where the freedoms and liberties of the average citizen are at stake - only those who are in contact with terrorists. Therefore I see no threat to freedom that needs to be contended with. I think it is a jump in logic to assume our fundamental freedoms are in danger due to this.
My basic point in all this is that I don't think this is an issue the EFF needs to be involved in. There are a great many other things that need to be dealt with IMHO. If the executive branch has this type of power (which apparently it does according to history and the Justice Department) then I do not see how AT&T can be held accountable for actions relating to executive order.
Hmmm.
First, I also understand that terrorists could definitely destabilize our economy. I guess it comes down to which is more important, being rich and having all this stuff that we cherish....or being poor and having that freedom that so many people have fought for. But we might not ever get that choice, at the rate places like China and India are catching up to us (and the rate that we're going in debt to them) we might become poor anyway :-( (Buy American!)
You mentioned that there haven't been any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Unfortunately, we also haven't found any major cells in the USA. That worries me.
There are caveats to all three of the reasons you make for wiretaps to be OK...some are more worrisome than others. I'm just going to throw out the counterpoints, and you can judge for yourself how relevant/important they are:
* The measures are temporary ? They've been going for 5 years (2001-2006, really more like 4.5) plus, our leaders say that the ?War against terrorism? will be an ongoing war (and being ?at war? is what gives these powers). We only had the Japanese in internment camps for 4 years (1941-1945...correct me if I'm wrong on this) during WWII. The war on terror is the first war that we've ever fought that is planned to extend indefinitely.
* The warrant less wiretaps are done ONLY where one end is overseas AND with a known or suspected terrorist (ie. not the President's political enemies etc) - This statement is VERY MUCH in contention. Different versions of the story say different things about this. Several versions state that telecom traffic at large is collected and filtered with computers...not individuals or their lines. It doesn't behave like a traditional wiretap...more like a google index of every phone call and e-mail. I want to be very clear, this is NOT a verified fact, but I've seen enough information to be personally inclined to believe it. Besides, because of the nature of it, the government can't talk about it. Its like spy satellites in the 80s. They were never acknowledge, but everyone knew they were there. Anyway, decide for yourself if you believe it, don't listen to me.
* The administration continues to provide details of the program to select members of Congress and the Judiciary ? This is partially true, and partially false, and the partially true part has other problems. First, the whole reason this issue even came up is because the Executive branch DID NOT provide the required details (warrants) to the Judiciary. Ignore everything else about the issues, and weather or not we need them...this is where the law was broken, because Congress specifically forbade this action. As far as informing members of congress, I'm only aware of one pre-public disclosure meeting that addressed this, and several congress members were unhappy with the results. Enough that one of them wrote to the Vice President expressing his worry. However, all of them were prevented from acting out on their worries by threats of security action.
Anyway, that's quite a bit to digest. The basis of my point is that we need to show our patriotism and STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS! We can't let those that suffered and died for our freedoms be in vain !
Hey bro,
Thanks for the comment. I can't say that I totally disagree with you or Tom regarding this issue. I'm a big fan of government being small and basically only a "necessary evil." To me, this issue isn't a cut-and-dry issue of government power vs. individual rights. Because there is a third issue at stake here. And that third issue is a pretty big one - because without it, government power and individual rights are kind of pointless.
It's easy for us as we sit here - with jobs and relative comfort, safety and well-being - to say that privacy is a huge priority to us. But suppose all the sudden there was no air. Where would your priorities be then? Probably breathing would be more important I'm guessing. Do you see my point in that? I think Tom kinda missed my point earlier when I revisited the damage that a single attack did to our economy, our feeling of safety, and a major industry in our society. Suppose we had several such attacks in the span of a few months and suppose they touched many different areas of our society. Imagine the massive damage that would do to our economy and the feeling of safety - not to mention the possibility that the lives of those we love or even our own lives might be lost during that time or in the resulting chaos. Imagine people afraid to go shopping for fear of random bombs or chemical attacks at stores across the country. Imagine bombs showing up on airplanes despite all the "safety" measures taken at our airports. You probably didn't hear about that bomb they found on a plane in Detroit a few weeks ago. The press did a pretty good job of overlooking that one. Or imagine some chemical or biological attacks on water supplies in several cities causing people to not even trust the water they drink. There are so many ways that our open society makes us vulnerable to any number of attacks. Masses of people would stop doing a lot of things for fear of their own safety and the subsequent effect on our economy could possibly bring about a major collapse. Layoffs, huge unemployment numbers, riots, looting, all these things are entirely possible in that scenario. And how easy would it be to bring all that about? Think to yourself as you drive the short distance to work all the things you could do to disrupt our society with little or no effort. Anything to bring about fear would be the name of the game. It's not even about how many people you kill. It's all about playing to people's fear and over a period of time you could bring down the greatest nation in the world.
So what's more important? Listening in on a few thousand phone calls of people are communicating with known terrorists or people connected with terrorists? Or running blind with the hopes that they will simply leave us alone so people's privacy won't be sacrificed.
They aren't going to leave us alone. We are going to lose something - either freedoms via one way or freedoms via another. I don't think there's any way you can rationally dispute that. We either lose freedoms to the terrorists or we lose them to ourselves as a result of the terrorists.
You know me - you know that I'm a big fan of privacy - PGP and Tor and Privoxy and the like. But I'm also a bit of a pragmatist and I understand that we're in a lose-lose situation. We can't have it both ways. I'm not a fan of the government watching what I do - not in the least. But let's call and apple and apple here. The government watching phone calls to terrorists does not equal 1984. I do realize that this is a step in that direction. But I also realize that we haven't had a terrorist attack in the last four and a half years and I imagine that it has been programs like this NSA spying program that have helped us stay safe. I don't think it's just some quirky coincidence that oh we have this crappy spying program and oh yeah we haven't been attacked either. I'm sure there are lots of other programs we don't know about that have been going on for a while too to help bring this about. I mean, it's not like the terrorists just gave up and decided to quit attacks on us since that last one was such a failure and all.
So to me - it's a trade-off. I get to have a job and relative comfort for myself and my family. And I have the understanding that if I call a terrorist I'm probably going to be listened to by my government. Could the government go further? Oh sure. I've often wondered if the government isn't already watching my e-mails or listening to my conversations looking for special phrases like "kill the President" or something like that since the Clinton administration was in power. I was actually surprised that those conversations with terrorists were the *only* ones they were listening to. And who knows, maybe they aren't the only ones. Government is not wholesome and good and it never will be - despite what folks on the left tend to believe.
There have been many previous Presidents that have used this type of power in the past - why now then do we only attack *this* administration for using it when at least this time there is some level of necessity for it?
And to get to the EFF's lawsuit - I'd like to know exactly how this lawsuit is going to help the situation. Like most frivolous lawsuits I'm sure that the public will bear the burden of it in the end and the world will be no better than before. Dear Lord the DMCA is still out there can't they do something about that instead? Talk about loss of rights and privacy... Let's take all the power to spy on us away from government and give it to corporations instead. I believe *that* is where the larger threat looms - not in government. Corporations will eventually have unfettered access to everything about us and we stand by and point fingers at the government like they are the largest evil for listening to some phone conversations. What insanity that is...
But to bring this back around Shawn, I do totally understand what you are saying and I would be in support of allowing this program (and the others that are probably out there too) to exist but maybe put some more controls in place than what already exist. I think it's best to work with the situation - let the government do what it can to "promote the general welfare" but also maybe put some controls in place so that 1984 doesn't become a reality.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home