Here
and
Now

opinions

Obama's overdue reckoning on secrecy

10 Comments

Last Thursday, Washington officials from across the political spectrum scrambled to explain reports in the Guardian and Washington Post of unprecedented government collection of the phone records of Americans and the tracking of the Google, Facebook and Skype activities of Americans and non-Americans worldwide.

James R Clapper, director of National Intelligence, insisted in an unusual public statement that the phone programs did not involve the surveillance of American citizens. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Committee, asserted the government needs the information to someone those who might become a terrorist. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga), the ranking member and vice chairman of the intelligence committee, described the program as "meritorious" because it allows government to collect information about "bad guys."

President Barack Obama on Friday defended his administration's unprecedented level of surveillance.

"When I came into this office," the president said, answering questions after a speech in California,"I made two commitments that are more important than any commitment I make: Number one, to keep the American people safe, and number two, to uphold the Constitution. And that includes what I consider to be a constitutional right to privacy and an observance of civil liberties."

The president can't have it both ways. On one hand, he says he is trying to scale down the "war on terror." On the other, he has increased the surveillance state whose only justification is to wage it. As al-Qaida weakens, surveillance should decreased, not increased.

Those Washington-centric explanations are not enough. Throughout Obama's presidency, liberal Americans accepted the argument that government would not engage in overreach.

Meanwhile, dizzying rates of technological change created unprecedented opportunities for government and corporate abuse - from drone strikes that make targeted killings politically easy to cell phones that automatically track our movements.

Despite the ubiquitous sharing of our life events, thoughts and interests on Facebook and Twitter, which makes our lives open electronic pages, the public accepted promises from Google, Facebook, Twitter and other technology conglomerates that the data they collect would not be misused.

All that has changed. The debate now unfolding is long overdue and a vital civics lesson. There is too little awareness of corporate and government data mining. And far too few protections against its excesses.

In the political short term, Obama may be the biggest loser. This debate is the latest blow to an administration intent on making government seem competent, not oppressive. The metadata collection will strengthen a growing narrative of government overreach.

Consider recent headlines. CIA drones kill American citizens. Internal Revenue Service agents target Tea Party activists. The FBI collects the phone and email records of journalists it accuses of endangering national security. Those stories rightly cause a furor on the right and left of the political spectrum.

Fox News commentators, who have long warned of government overreach, cited the NSA disclosure as proof of "government gone wild". But Obama's real problem is that he is now losing the center and left.

The New York Times said Obama's promise that internal reviews of drone strikes, leak investigation and surveillance, which he declined to publicly describe, would prevent abuses was no longer acceptable. "The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue," the paper said in a blunt editorial.

The more centrist Washington Post editorial page questioned why the phone record collection has been kept secret for seven years. They called for a clear explanation from the administration.

Thursday's responses did not cut it. Clapper said that the disclosure of the program "threatens potentially long-lasting and irreversible harm to our ability to identify and respond to the many threats facing our nation."

I disagree. Terrorists already assume that the United States tracks their every phone call and online click. Militant groups have developed procedures to avoid detection.

Inside the United States, meanwhile, fear of the political damage a successful terrorist attack could cause is creating an overreaching security state. Any loss of life in an attack is horrific, but stopping determined individuals from carrying out an attack is next to impossible.

Our politicians use the false promise of total security as a justification for eroding our privacy.

"If we don't do it," Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said, "we're crazy."

Graham is wrong and both Republicans and Democrats are tone deaf on the issue. They do not understand how deeply government is distrusted outside Washington.

The efforts of Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and a few other congressional surveillance skeptics, including Senators Richard J Durbin (D-Ill) and Mark Udall (D-Colo), should be lauded. The Patriot Act's standards for which communications logs can be obtained must be tightened.

In the coming weeks, a fierce debate is likely to emerge over the new American surveillance state. It's about time.

More transparency is crucial. We must develop clearer laws, procedures and systems for protecting our lives from terrorists but also from our government and corporations.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

10 Comments
Login to comment

Obama is simply in the middle of a process that was begun during the Bush administration and that he couldn't stop if he tried.. Obama wanted to close Guantanamo prison, but couldn't. He wanted to effect sweeping changes to the gun laws but couldn't. His power is limited. If he were up for election again, this would be a problem for him politically. However, he isn't. So it's not. He already knows that his reputation as a leader of change is toast. It might be a problem for the next democratic contender, if it weren't for the fact that republicans are even more in favor of this kind of thing than the democrats. They've gone much quieter recently on the whole privacy issue.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Only one comment so far!? Is it just me, or is there very little dialogue going on over this on the net?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Only one comment so far!? Is it just me, or is there very little dialogue going on over this on the net?

Make a negative online comment about BIG BROTHER???

Go To Straight To Gitmo!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Being as how there have been no more terrorist attacks in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11/2001, maybe the policies that started during the Bush administration and continuing with the Obama administration are working?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama is simply in the middle of a process that was begun during the Bush administration and that he couldn't stop if he tried.. Obama wanted to close Guantanamo prison, but couldn't. He wanted to effect sweeping changes to the gun laws but couldn't. His power is limited. If he were up for election again, this would be a problem for him politically. However, he isn't. So it's not. He already knows that his reputation as a leader of change is toast. It might be a problem for the next democratic contender, if it weren't for the fact that republicans are even more in favor of this kind of thing than the democrats. They've gone much quieter recently on the whole privacy issue.

Don't give me that. Maybe in the beginning, Obama was for doing those changes, but over the years as Serrano, I think Obama realized that what Bush did wasn't so bad after and decided to embrace his policies, but there is NO WAY he was going to tell his progressive supporters that. If Obama really wanted to close Guantanamo, he could have, but didn't. More power to him for that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

911 was an inside job. Building #7 people! accept that, and all this terrorist crap goes out the window and something else is lurking under the bed.

I made two commitments that are more important than any commitment I make: Number one, to keep the American people safe, and number two, to uphold the Constitution.

Should be the other way around Mr. P.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama ran on a platform that included dismantling this database (prism) , stop the collection widespread collection of phone records of people who have not committed any crime and to close Guantánamo Bay.

he is in his second term, Guantanamo is under a hunger strike- with no closure in sight - but he is sorry,

He defends the collection of Prism data (so all your photos and dreams go through his filters) - but it is necessary

He defends the phone records he collects of innocents - because it is also necessary ( but he might be a little sorry)

and he defends the abrogation of the first amendment by getting thier phone records too -and he is not sorry there

Absolute power the saying goes - I am so sorry but it looks like he fell to the temptation

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Greater national security or greater privacy for individual citizens. An interesting dilemma. Terrorists are bad, but internal corruption presents its own problems, so government transparency and individual privacy might gain more favor to stem abuse of information despite the benefits of absolute program secrecy and open data mining. The public debate that is being stirred now will help in finding the right balance to this in the long run.

In the mean time, it might be best to not send love letters over the internet where they might be trampled by some scruffy CIA contractors because you are some politician's pet peeve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Serrano,

Being as how there have been no more terrorist attacks in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11/2001

Don't tell me you're trying to give us that old "Conspiracy Theory" line about 9/11 having to do with terrorists?

It was a set up job. Nobody believes the hype about two aircraft bringing down three buildings.

Listening in on people's phone calls and reading their email has NOTHING to do with the lack of similar "terrorist" attacks.

The NSA isn't making the environment safer.

It's the thin end of the wedge.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites