Brennan Center advises on how and whether government should spy on citizens

Controversial figure, Edward Snowden who revealed government spying on citizens

“We expect the government to collect and share information that is critical to national security, but creating an electronic dossier on every American citizen is inefficient and ineffective. We need modern policies that limit how and with whom innocent Americans’ data can be shared and stored.”

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, and author of a report presented by the Brennan Center for Justice on how much information American law enforcement and intelligence agencies gathers, how much and with whom it is shared. She goes on to say, ““Intelligence agencies are treating the chaff much the same as the wheat.”

Given the interest in spying and intelligence agencies collecting information on American citizens and others around the world, as revealed by Edward Snowden, the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law decided to examine the specifics of these issues by collecting data and examining it relative to the information gathering process the government uses.

To do this the Center looked at five methods of data collection and has found that law enforcement agencies not only collective a great deal of information concerning Americans but have the capacity to store it for 75 years.

The following represent some of the highlights of the Brennan Center's reports:

• The FBI’s policy is to keep all information it gathers — regardless of whether it’s on innocent Americans or is relevant to an investigation — for 20 to 30 years.
• In the five years after 9/11, the FBI improperly gathered and retained information on individuals because of their political and social activism — in violation of the First Amendment — and put this data into federal databases from which it became almost impossible to escape, according a 2010 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.
• Suspicious Activity Reports (“See something, say something”) ostensibly related to terrorism are kept in a widely accessible FBI database for 30 years, even if the FBI concludes they have NO nexus to terrorism.
• The NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times between 2011 and 2012, including acquiring information on “more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders” and using search terms for communications that were guaranteed to yield results with no connection to terrorism, according to a 2012 audit.
• Without a warrant, Americans’ electronic communications may be kept for up to six years, may be searched using Americans’ email addresses or phone numbers, and can be shared if they are evidence of a crime.

The Brennan Center goes on to tell us how important it is, as technology advances and gathering and sharing information becomes easier, that policies be adopted to make sure than the national security system does not take away or violate American's civil liberties.

The Brennan Center’s offers a numbe of recommendations to facilitate how the government collections information:

• Prohibiting the retention and sharing of domestically-gathered data about Americans without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
• Increasing public oversight over the National Counterterrorism Center, which can amass, retain, and analyze large quantities of non-terrorism information about Americans.
• Reforming the outdated Privacy Act of 1974, which is ill-equipped to protect the privacy of Americans’ personal information in a digital age.
• Requiring regular and robust audits of federal agencies’ retention and sharing of noncriminal information about Americans, and ensuring existing policies are accessible and transparent.

These recommendations match those made by other individuals concerned about the violations of privacy in the undertakings of intelligence and security officials, with a specific view that folks hope will be adopted to balance the needs of protecting the American public from harm while at the same time making sure that personal civil rights are observed.

Moral dilemmas in espionage, security create discussions about outsidethreats

Carol Forsloff--The recent news about government collection of data by phone and Internet of private citizens presents a moral dilemma that many security experts deal with regularly. The humanitarian principles involved in caring for others raises questions about the public's right to know vs national security. What are these moral dilemmas and what might be considered the proper balance between public disclosure of information and the protection of that same public from outside threats?

Dr. David Perry discusses these issues in an article published in 1995 entitled "Repugnant Philosophy: Ethics, Espionage and Covert Action." His thesis about the moral dilemmas in espionage provides a relevant platform to assess Edward Snowden's disclosure of government secrets involving the collection of data on ordinary Americans using telephone and Internet records.

Dr. Perry initiates his discussion by pointing out that ethical principles are seldom discussed in security circles but reminds us "whatever interests or rights that states can legitimately be said to have must derive from the interests and rights of their individual citizens." He goes on to explain what that means with reference to the rights of the individual and the rights of the state.

Those involved in espionage and security are taught to lie, deceive, manipulate, and hide information in order to do much of their work. But the goals of national security do not outweigh the moral values, Dr. Perry points out. He reminds us  that "those who have the authority to establish objectives for intelligence operations must not only weigh the ethical justification of those ends but must also raise ethical questions about the various means being considered to achieve them."

Snowden maintains he is a whistleblower, taking responsibility for alerting the public about what he considers to be unethical behavior on the part of the government through its ubiquitous surveillance of private citizens. Dr. Perry's contends that all individuals involved in security and espionage must face moral issues but does not promote the notion of the end justifies the means. In other words, stealing government records and bypassing the standard reporting methods would be questionable.

In the light of the present issue about the public need for transparency in its government and the government's role to protect the security of its citizens, ethical considerations are paramount to any discussion. Perhaps Dr. Perry's advice to include these ethical discussions as part of training at all levels in security and intelligence work might prevent another tragic situation presented by Snowden's disclosures that could significantly impact US security.