"Who will guard the guards."
-Juvenal
In the aftermath of recent and unprecedented leaks of classified information, many questions about the proper role of government and cyber security have been raised. When I first heard of the leak, I was certain that Snowden was a self-serving person more interested in his 15 minutes of internet celebrity than the health or safety of America. For the sake of fairness, I viewed his interview on YouTube. I came away from it frustrated. If his intentions are genuine, he is at best a badly misguided 29-year old who has committed a felony. The questions he raised to a foreign reporter in Hong Kong could have just as easily been raised in a Congressman's office or the Department of Justice. Furthermore, although he alludes to mentioning misgivings to supervisors, there is a fundamental difference and legal difference between going to other members of his agency, our government, or our representatives, and disclosing information to foreign media. Worse, he boasts about his access and knowledge of classified information, and how he has not disclosed it. Super. Has he considered the value of that information to unscrupulous people and what those people would be willing to do to get it from him? The fact that he is no longer under the protection of the US Government should give him pause. On our worst day, we are a nation of laws and debate. As much cannot be said about where he may soon be hiding. Ultimately, Snowden is a misguided person who may have good intentions but has utterly failed to act on them in a responsible manner.
If any good has come from this, it is a re-focusing of debate on how our laws allow oversight of electronic surveillance. Specifically, who and how much supervision is there on our surveillance programs? Currently, there is no expectation of physical privacy in the public space. That means that a video surveillance camera can tape you and identify you as you walk down the street. Are we comfortable with this? The expectation of privacy on the internet is murky, since portions of the Patriot Act are clear that information obtained cannot be disclosed. Do we have any expectation of privacy from internet companies? Are we naive to think that we can, or even should, be anonymous on the internet? Perhaps the best solution for the Government issue is more judicial oversight, or even a third party bureaucracy. It would be absurd for the Government to send notification to a terrorist suspect that he or she was under electronic surveillance; however, the abuse of this power could make Watergate look like child's play. Similar to the phone hacking scandal, if a government can do it- it is likely that private individuals or corporations could, too. This is far more disconcerting than anything the Government may be doing.
-Juvenal
In the aftermath of recent and unprecedented leaks of classified information, many questions about the proper role of government and cyber security have been raised. When I first heard of the leak, I was certain that Snowden was a self-serving person more interested in his 15 minutes of internet celebrity than the health or safety of America. For the sake of fairness, I viewed his interview on YouTube. I came away from it frustrated. If his intentions are genuine, he is at best a badly misguided 29-year old who has committed a felony. The questions he raised to a foreign reporter in Hong Kong could have just as easily been raised in a Congressman's office or the Department of Justice. Furthermore, although he alludes to mentioning misgivings to supervisors, there is a fundamental difference and legal difference between going to other members of his agency, our government, or our representatives, and disclosing information to foreign media. Worse, he boasts about his access and knowledge of classified information, and how he has not disclosed it. Super. Has he considered the value of that information to unscrupulous people and what those people would be willing to do to get it from him? The fact that he is no longer under the protection of the US Government should give him pause. On our worst day, we are a nation of laws and debate. As much cannot be said about where he may soon be hiding. Ultimately, Snowden is a misguided person who may have good intentions but has utterly failed to act on them in a responsible manner.
If any good has come from this, it is a re-focusing of debate on how our laws allow oversight of electronic surveillance. Specifically, who and how much supervision is there on our surveillance programs? Currently, there is no expectation of physical privacy in the public space. That means that a video surveillance camera can tape you and identify you as you walk down the street. Are we comfortable with this? The expectation of privacy on the internet is murky, since portions of the Patriot Act are clear that information obtained cannot be disclosed. Do we have any expectation of privacy from internet companies? Are we naive to think that we can, or even should, be anonymous on the internet? Perhaps the best solution for the Government issue is more judicial oversight, or even a third party bureaucracy. It would be absurd for the Government to send notification to a terrorist suspect that he or she was under electronic surveillance; however, the abuse of this power could make Watergate look like child's play. Similar to the phone hacking scandal, if a government can do it- it is likely that private individuals or corporations could, too. This is far more disconcerting than anything the Government may be doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment