"What's really going on here?" That's the question I typically ask students to kick-start a discussion about some aspect of American intelligence at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, where I teach a graduate course on the subject....
Why are we so fascinated with this case? Why are some Americans outraged at the government while others are outraged at the leaker? Why do so many of us have such firm and passionate views about all of this?...
The bottom line is that intelligence, as a profession, still does not sit comfortably in our polity. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, the essential qualities of good intelligence inevitably clash with the underlying values of an open, pluralistic, and free society such as ours. The effectiveness of our democracy depends on an informed citizenry; effective intelligence depends on withholding and protecting information deemed sensitive. As citizens, Americans cherish their privacy; intelligence officers, subject to frequent background checks, polygraphs, and intrusive financial disclosure, are accustomed to giving it up... So as the curtain is pulled back on the NSA's surveillance program, many of us instinctively recoil -- and even some supporters wince a little. Meanwhile, prurient interest in the details skyrockets.
Second, we are a "young" intelligence nation, and intelligence is still the most novel tool in our foreign policy kit. The United States was the last major country to organize intelligence at the national level...
In other countries, intelligence still holds plenty of fascination for the public, but many older nations, unlike the United States, have domestic intelligence services and have integrated the profession more comfortably into their cultures. Besides, they do not "leak" intelligence at anywhere near the frequency that we do, so material with the potential to shock or startle is much less plentiful....
The surprise and shock provoked by this latest revelation is matched only by one little-appreciated irony: The United States is by far the world's most transparent nation on intelligence matters, and its spy services are without question the most closely and thoroughly overseen. Any adversary studying the frequent open congressional testimonies by intelligence officials, our daily press stories, our declassified intelligence publications, and our endless stream of leaks, would have to be hopelessly dim to not understand our priorities and deduce many of our methods.
For example, theannual threat assessment that the director of national intelligence must present publicly to Congress -- I have presented it myself -- is a serious and detailed document that gives away no actual secrets but is certainly a reliable guide to our intelligence priorities and the main lines of our analytic thinking, as are annual unclassified reports to Congress on subjects like the foreign ballistic missile threat. Foreign intelligence officials, who do not have such requirements, endlessly ask me: Why, in heavens name, do you Americans do this?....
Another aspect of American life laid bare by the current controversy is the wide gulf between intelligence professionals and those who ask why a leak like this does damage. To an experienced intelligence officer, it's the ultimate "duh" question -- a bit like asking if a flashlight might be helpful on a dark night. Sure, adversaries assume we do some of this, but they don't know how we do it or how effective we are. The typical intelligence officer asks: Why should we give any detail or confirmation to people trying to kill us when they volunteer nothing and rely on secrecy as their most effective asymmetric tool against our superior power? In the intelligence game, we succeed as much by fostering ambiguity and uncertainty as by our technical ingenuity...
So the controversy over surveillance reveals much about us as a nation and about the cultural divide between the intelligence profession and those with a different focus. Where does it go from here? A prediction: The surveillance program will be endlessly and publicly debated, investigated, eviscerated, and digested. In the end, we will all get comfortable with some not-so-very different version of it, perhaps buttressed by a more consensus-based legal foundation. In the process, we will have created a public guidebook to how we do this type of intelligence, and our citizens will be much more educated and sophisticated about our intelligence methods.
But so will those who want to know all of this even more desperately than we do. There is no having it both ways.
I'm all for the NSA spying on you. I'd prefer they didn't spy on me. I'm no threat. I'm not so sure about you, though. That's how it works.Hmm, I am not mad at the NSA. Yes, you can quote Benjamin Franklin, but I truly don't care. Is it surprising that a/an Intelligence Agency actually spies? No, not at all. Is it surprising that they spy on their own citizens? No, I would be surprised if they didn't.
I'm all for the NSA spying on you. I'd prefer they didn't spy on me. I'm no threat. I'm not so sure about you, though. That's how it works.
No, I don't - nor do I need to in any great detail. I'm not worried about this program in our country as it stands. I have been rather thoroughly investigated by the federal government, so they already know nearly everything of consequence about me. I'm simply attempting to point out the concerns of those who believe their privacy is sacrosanct. That idea is comfortable, but largely an illusion. I've done my bit for the feds in the past, and now I'd like to believe that my life is mine to live without undue federal intrusion. I think much of what they're attempting to do is a waste of time and undermines the trust of the public that they truly need in order to do their jobs effectively. Snowden has done us no favors.Do you know how the programs work? If you did, then you wouldn't really be worrying as much.
No, I don't - nor do I need to in any great detail. I'm not worried about this program in our country as it stands. I have been rather thoroughly investigated by the federal government, so they already know nearly everything of consequence about me. I'm simply attempting to point out the concerns of those who believe their privacy is sacrosanct. That idea is comfortable, but largely an illusion. I've done my bit for the feds in the past, and now I'd like to believe that my life is mine to live without undue federal intrusion. I think much of what they're attempting to do is a waste of time and undermines the trust of the public that they truly need in order to do their jobs effectively. Snowden has done us no favors.
Do you know how the programs work? If you did, then you wouldn't really be worrying as much.
The NSA is filled with individuals who are as incompetent and corruptible as every other human being who walks on the earth. Giving someone the power to spy on people without oversight inevitably to leads to abuse. I am aware that transparency makes it harder for the intelligence community to do their jobs, however that is small price to pay to limit the potential corruption of power.
The dangers of unaccountable spying has been clearly demonstrated not only in places like the USSR, but even in the U.S. with Hoover's FBI. Lets not repeat history for once.
No, I don't - nor do I need to in any great detail.
The article is pompous bull****. The NSA is filled with individuals who are as incompetent and corruptible as every other human being who walks on the earth. Giving someone the power to spy on people without oversight inevitably to leads to abuse. I am aware that transparency makes it harder for the intelligence community to do their jobs, however that is small price to pay to limit the potential corruption of power.
The dangers of unaccountable spying has been clearly demonstrated not only in places like the USSR, but even in the U.S. with Hoover's FBI. Lets not repeat history for once.
Head, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.Knownothingism as a political skill. Only in conservativebizarroworld.
The problem is that we have no idea what the NSA is doing, or who is actually doing oversight.Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Do you have any indications - other than Snowden's increasingly suspect claims that he himself did so - of oversight failing to catch systemic abuse of the information the NSA collects?
The Executive branch runs it, not oversees it. The Judicial branch rubber-stamps it. It's not clear what Congress really knows.This program was overseen by the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branch. You don't get much less "unaccountable" spying than that.
Giving someone the power to spy on people without oversight inevitably to leads to abuse.
The problem is that we have no idea what the NSA is doing, or who is actually doing oversight.
...
Are you really comfortable knowing that the NSA has a record of every person you've called, a copy of every email you've written and VOIP call you've ever made?
The problem is that we have no idea what the NSA is doing, or who is actually doing oversight.
We also have no idea if anyone has actually ever reined in the NSA on anything, or if the NSA is in fact effective. How can we evaluate something that we don't know exists in the first place?
Are you really comfortable knowing that the NSA has a record of every person you've called, a copy of every email you've written and VOIP call you've ever made?
We do? Where are the NSA's programs listed? Who is telling us what the NSA does? Who is making sure that individual NSA agents aren't abusing access?Well, that is not accurate. We have a fairly good description of what the NSA does....
Uh, yeah. Because of the actions of whistleblowers.We also (now) know that this particular program had Congressional, Executive, and Judicial branch oversight over it.
The American people have been completely left out of the loop. I'd regard that as an eentsy oversight on someone's part.There isn't exactly another branch of government we could bring in to make it "extra more oversight-ed".
So basically, your argument boils down to "trust the government"?well, it's not our job to evaluate its' effectiveness.
I don't need to access the actual databases. I do want to know what information the government is collecting on millions of citizens, who ought to have a say in the matter.In fact, making it available to you to evaluate it, destroys its' effectiveness. That is why we elect representatives, to govern on our behalf.
Comments like that are really not helping your position.Given that that data has been collected our entire lives?
Data is being collected all of the time.
Even or maybe I should say especially on the phone, on the internet , in emails and of course on message boards.
Most data collections is just random data, without names, addresses etc.
Data collectors are looking for unusually patterns etc.
Do you know how the programs work? If you did, then you wouldn't really be worrying as much.
We do? Where are the NSA's programs listed? Who is telling us what the NSA does? Who is making sure that individual NSA agents aren't abusing access?
What are the implications for foreign relations? Most of the world's Internet traffic passes through the US at some point -- so not only is the NSA sucking up all of our data, they're doing the same to large numbers of foreigners. Who is held accountable to their rights?
Uh, yeah. Because of the actions of whistleblowers.
And again: The Executive does NOT have "oversight," they are the ones operating the program.
The judiciary has direct oversight (FISA courts),
the legislature has a removed step (briefings, which don't seem to be very complete)
The American people have been completely left out of the loop. I'd regard that as an eentsy oversight on someone's part.
Plus, exactly which oversight mechanisms are in place? (We don't know.) What stops individual agents from potentially abusing access? (We don't know.)
What stops the NSA from engaging in the same abuses as Hoover, COINTEL, and earlier instances of domestic spying?
So basically, your argument boils down to "trust the government"?
I don't need to access the actual databases. I do want to know what information the government is collecting on millions of citizens, who ought to have a say in the matter.
Comments like that are really not helping your position.
Obviously some things need to be done in secret.
Maybe I'm missing something but how does NSA knowing who I order pizza from help make the country more secure?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?