Hedden 1

Joshua Hedden

Felicia Cain Dziadek

English 1302

November 30, 2012

Domestic Surveillance

In today's generation, our society has been blessed with the tools of modern technology. It has been formatted to perform a task that was once impossible to do in the past easing the lives of our citizens today. Although these luxuries have made life easier for normal citizens they also come with the price of consequences like the technology our government has. First of all the legal definition of Domestic Surveillance is a process entailing a close observing or listening to a person in effort to gather evidential information about the commission of a crime, or lesser improper behavior. Wiretapping, eavesdropping, shadowing, tailing, and electronic observation are all examples of this law-enforcement technique. The main thing to focus on here is the technology that is being used like cameras, microphones, tape recorders, surveillance drones or even satellites. Citizens don't even know that someone can simply be reading your emails as you send them across the Internet or a cellular device. Are you aware that someone could be spying on you right now? Are you aware that the NSA also known as the National Security Agency can be listening in on your phone calls? Are you also aware that they may check your email? If not you should be. Secrets may no longer stay a secret anymore. I don't know about you but I don't agree with domestic spying and I think it should be stopped. I understand the same excuse is being used by the government be saying its for our safety or protecting the United States of America from terrorist organizations and attacks. The bottom line is a lack of proportion between benefits and risks. This technology has the potential to do so many things but carries real dangers of abuse and has to have a line drawn somewhere. Certain acts and civil liberties have been crossed already without citizens even knowing so even if that line is drawn its hard to say our government won't cross it anytime they feel the need to.

Due to the recent increase in terrorist activities, there has been an upswing in the extent of security measures. Of all newly enacted defense methods, the most controversial is domestic surveillance, or the right of the government to observe and monitor its citizens' private doings and lives without their consent. Originally reserved for police investigations of suspected criminals, this new form of domestic surveillance broadens the group under observation to anyone making an international phone call. The nation is split between those who insist that it is a blatant violation of rights and those who argue that the safety of the country is at stake. Though the technical validations for enacting domestic surveillance are sound, the required sacrifice of the personal freedoms this country is based on is too high a price, and is a threat of a potential totalitarian takeover in the future. The motives for enacting domestic surveillance are clear. It is safer and more effective to prevent acts of terrorism than to stop them once they are already in motion. It is more efficient and smarter to take preventative courses of action. And it is agreed that the only way to ensure total protection is to monitor everything, especially in a time of danger. It is also agreed that getting rid of minor threats before they bloom into catastrophes is the sanest course of action. And yet, despite this unanimous agreement, there are still multitudes of disputes over privacy and the right to live as one wishes. The greatest asset this country has is an unparalleled freedom for its people. The U.S.A. is a country built on freedom, and by charter dedicated to the maintenance and preservation of it. The greatest fear and most crusading cause of the U.S.A. over the past six decades has been to protect people worldwide from oppression, dictatorship and maltreatment at the hands of a corrupt governing body.

As far back as 1948, author George Orwell wrote his book called 1984, a warning against future totalitarian regimes. The resounding phrase, “Big Brother is Watching You” (1984) comes to the forefront of people's minds when they hear of these new domestic surveillance policies. The primary concern with domestic surveillance is not concerned entirely with the policy itself, but what it would mean to have the government violate the constitution unopposed. Where this all starts is with a mysterious organization called the NSA. What is the NSA you ask? The NSA or National Security Agency is a cryptologic intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence, as well as protecting U.S. government communications and information systems. By law, NSA's intelligence gathering is limited to foreign communications, although domestic incidents such as the NSA warrant less surveillance controversy has occurred. The specific requirements for domestic surveillance operations are contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 or FISA, which does not extend protection to non-U.S. citizens located outside of U.S. territory. All these activities, especially the publicly acknowledged domestic telephone tapping and call database programs, have prompted questions about the extent of the NSA's activities and concerns about threats to privacy and the rule of law. Over the years the NSA has been scrutinized with claims such as the class action lawsuit filed against AT&T on January 2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The foundation alleged that AT&T permitted and assisted the NSA in unlawfully monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed through AT&T's network, as well as Voice over IP telephone calls routed via Internet. What happened was AT&T permitted and assisted the NSA to install a system in its switching centers which was capable of monitoring billions of bits of internet traffic a second. This included the playback of calls, getting voice mails, and also emails. The problem with the NSA is they are under what is called a State Secrets Privilege, which was created basically to not disclose sensitive information that might endanger national security.

What people don't realize is the Fourth Amendment provides two basic protections. First, it prohibits government officials, or persons acting under color of law, from performing unreasonable searches and seizures. Second, it forbids magistrates from issuing warrants that are not supported by probable cause or that fail to specify the persons, places, and things subject to search and seizure. What needs to be noted here is when the law was created and how it works. Basically today our technology is far superior than back when it was created which has made the amendment get revised over the years. Still today some consider the amendment to soft or to vague because of people like the NSA it’s really easy for them to get around it. Now the funny thing is that as this was going on there was another huge lawsuit against the NSA and it was actually one of the former AT&T engineers. During all this and the court hearings over time on July 2008, Congress passed, and on July 10, 2008, President George Bush signed, the FISA Amendments Act, which granted immunity to telecommunications companies for past violations of FISA. So in short summary everything that happened up until the year 2008 got dismissed just like that. In George Orwell's book 1984 the world was far-fetched, with thought out police and news but its message was very clear: A government with the power to observe everything and has the power to control everything. This is where the rightful opposition to domestic surveillance policies come; from the fear of losing valued freedom and of being enslaved by a government for its own purposes. Though once far-fetched, the prospect of government enslavement becomes more realistic with each new “national security” enactment. According to the Washington Post, President George W. Bush signed a secret order in 2002 that allowed the NSA to freely eavesdrop on any U.S. resident or citizen. This order allowed the NSA to monitor email, phone calls and other forms of communication despite the legal prohibitions against doing so. The prohibitions classify any unwarranted form of spying or surveillance as illegal and an infringement of the U.S. Constitution. What’s funny about this is that the New York Times stated that it was prohibited to publish its knowledge of this order for over a year, because the government insisted that its disclosure would compromise national security. When campaigning against President George W. Bush, Barack Obama had pledged that there would be “no more wiretapping of American citizens,” but Obama's administration has continued to use many of Bush's arguments when it comes to warrant less wiretapping. The instances of U.S. law-enforcement agencies monitoring electronic communications such as phone calls, emails and even social network updates without a warrant has increased by as much as 60 percent in the past 2 years under president Obama.

The primary difference between police surveillance and domestic surveillance is when police observe a suspected criminal; they have a warrant to do so from a special court that agreed to grant it. The subject being observed has show behavior or habits that are deemed suspicious in accordance to a certain charge, and undeniable evidence exists of the subject being somehow linked to that charge. In order for these charges to be valid further investigation is needed. Looking at the NSA's surveillance, the charges are always nonspecific and often unfounded. Looking back at the Bush administration it was the first time a president had authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans. Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, agrees by saying that “It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity.” (Fredrickson, 2008).

Take a look at video surveillance across the nation. Video surveillance has not been proven effective; suicide attackers are clearly not deterred by video cameras and may even be attracted to the television coverage cameras. Just look at your local news for instance there are plenty of crimes at convenient stores and of course the police can’t find the criminals and are asking to call a number and you could receive a reward for your information. The real reason cameras are usually deployed is to reduce much pettier crimes. One problem with creating such a powerful surveillance system is that experience tells us it will inevitably be abused. Surveillance systems present law enforcement with a tempting opportunity for criminal misuse. In 1997, for example, a top ranking police official in Washington, DC was caught using police database to gather information on various citizens at a gay club by looking up the license plate numbers of cars parked at the club and researching the backgrounds of the vehicles owners, he tried to blackmail these people who were married. Imagine what someone like that could do with a citywide spy-camera system. What about abuse for personal purposes? Police could simply use a database to help their friends or themselves stalk women, threaten motorists after traffic altercations, and track estranged spouses or even give other people information. Advanced surveillance systems need to be checked because technology has evolved so quickly, these systems need to be checked to prevent the kind of abuses outlined above. A consensus about how cameras are used by the government is important, but in the end we are a nation of laws and rights that have their root in law. While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution offers some protection against video cameras, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of these systems. Rules are needed to establish a clear public understanding of such issues as whether video signals are recorded, under what conditions, and how long are they retained; what the criteria are for access to archived video by other government agencies, or by the public; how the rules would be verified and enforced; and what punishments would apply to violators. Look at audio recordings for example, there have been well-established rules governing the use of these systems without the consent of an individual. It makes no sense that we don't have equivalent laws for video recording.

William Binney a veteran of the National Security Agency helped design a top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans' personal data. Binney resigned from the NSA shortly after he found out what they were doing. He is not the only so called whistle-blower to resign; these people who have each risked everything like their freedom, livelihoods and personal relationships to warn Americans about the dangers of NSA domestic spying. Right now as we speak the NSA is currently finishing up on a $3 billion dollar building, one of the biggest and most mysterious construction projects in Utah history. The secrecy surrounding the project has confirmed it will become a vast storehouse of personal communications of average Americans. Also to point out these computers and cooling systems at the NSA Utah Data Center will reportedly consume $40 million worth of power each year. Washington officials wont say what the data center is for but the NSA says the center is to strengthen and protect our nations cyber security. Binney the Washington whistle-blower I mentioned above says that it’s just a cover up story for a serious threat to civil liberties. Now this is all new information that recently came out almost a month ago so some of it is speculation. One thing to take note is that this building can hold up to 100 years of each person’s personal data. The use of surveillance satellites can also be brought into this subject. In 2007 U.S. Intelligence agencies had approved the use of spy satellites for domestic purposes. These satellites are capable of observing targets around the globe in daylight and darkness, able to penetrate clouds and identify underground structures. The true capabilities are not known but it is believed you could zoom in on items as small as a human fist from hundreds of miles away. Six surveillance satellites were released in 2011 at an estimated cost of more than $3 billion dollars. Not to mention these satellites got released into space in a seven-month interval. Looking at the cost of the NSA’s new data building and these satellites it’s a weird economic spending budget we have here, I mean we are in a depression or our economy is doing bad right? The Obama administration's continued deployment of new spy satellites reveals high value it is planning in expanding for their so called “gathering programs”. The government also plans to launch a further three in the next five months it’s reported. The NSA says these spy satellites are useful for monitoring the development of potential nuclear capabilities in countries such as North Korea and Iran, where the United States has a limited presence on the ground. But that intelligence can be misleading and sometimes disastrously so. Look at the famous 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the United Nations cited satellite image of “unexplained construction” as evidence Baghdad was possibly developing nuclear weapons. It was obviously later discovered, infamously, that no such weapons had ever existed.

As I said earlier I feel domestic spying shouldn't be allowed. It may be illegal and it is an invasion of our privacy. I'm sure they can come out with other ways of catching terrorist other than reading our email and listening to our phone calls. The government needs to stop holding valuable information from the citizens of the United States. We the people need to know what is going on in our country. We are the United States and we are supposed to have freedom. Listening to our phone calls and reading our email is a violation against our freedom of privacy. Take a look at some of our bigger technology advanced companies for instance like Apple. The devices they create like the iPhone and iPod they all have a file associated in them called consolidated. DB this file received multiple speculations about location and time stamp keeps being sent to Apple. Apple explained in a letter to congress that they are building and using their own location database buildings to store this date. So what’s really in the file? It isn’t a list of places your iPhone has been it’s a list of cell tower and Wi-Fi hotspots your iPhone has detected. They say it helps improve their coverage over time but what this actually does is think of a spy tracking a terrorist cell. As the cell moves, the spy reports back to his or her agency with their locations by seeing the towers its by. Another thing is when setting up your iOS device apple asks you to help improve there products by sending anonymous diagnostics and usage information. What Apple says about all these things was funny because they had to change their privacy policy; this includes location-based data in it. Another thing that scares me is the use of OnStar in General Motor vehicles. What OnStar does is provide a subscription based in-vehicle security, hands free calling, turn-by-turn navigation, and remote diagnostics systems. The main points I want to get across here are actually the remote door unlock/lock and track of the vehicle. The biggest thing is there is actually an application you can download on your phone that lets your turn on your vehicle if you have OnStar and it also lets you turn it off. So could this actually be used as a surveillance device? Yes! It is possible for OnStar to be remotely activated by third parties or under government order. This would enable third parties to track the location of the car, along with the ability to listen to the contents of any conversations by the occupants within the car. The FBI has denied the ability to use t his because it disables OnStar's safety features. OnStar says all this is not possible without the knowledge of the occupant. But of course all this they say is for our safety like getting in a wreck and needed help so OnStar can easily track your location. Now this is one of those things that the dangers far outweigh the good just like most of the technology the government has and is using without us knowing.