First, I want to congratulate the NSA-leaker Edward Snowden for his courage and the great service he has done to Americans and to the world in exposing the NSA’s PRISM surveillance programs. The man must have balls the size of basketballs, although perhaps letting the world know his location — in Hong Kong, territory controlled by the People’s Republic of China, another nation that runs its own share of online surveillance programs — was unwise.
Some critics like the New York Times’ David Brooks say that what Snowden did was wrong, and that he showed a lack of respect for authority. It is certainly true that we live in an age where distrust of authority and the state has become commonplace. But perhaps that is only fair — after all, it is just ten years since the Iraq war, a war for which David Brooks was a cheerleader, wasted trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, and hundreds of thousands of lives chasing after so-called weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. If my state goes about wasting my money and thousands and thousands of lives on destroying foreign lands chasing after non-existent weapons of mass destruction, I am prone to distrust the state. Had the security services’ claims been subjected to proper scrutiny, it is possible that the disaster of Iraq could have been averted. Snowden is opening the surveillance and intelligence agencies that brought us the Iraq war — and that have now brought us PRISM — to proper public scrutiny.
In a democratic society, this is critical. These mass surveillance programs have been implemented without any real public discussion, precisely because they have been enacted in secret. This means that there has been no public discussion of goals, evidence, effectiveness and procedure.
We don’t know how effective or ineffective these programs are, because they have been concocted, enacted and analysed secretly. The security services have, in the interests of “national security” been empowered to enact the policies of their choice with limited governmental oversight, and certainly no public oversight. Their implicit hypothesis — that mass surveillance can prevent or reduce terrorism — has not as far as I can tell been subjected to serious academic scrutiny, at least publicly. This is not a scientific approach to policy — it is a knee-jerk approach to policy. In science, you collect data, release your findings and let others review your data, not claim a finding, secretly enact policies based on that finding, and hide any data.
We know that PRISM did not stop the Boston Bombings, or Sandy Hook, or the Aurora massacre. So perhaps it is the case that mass surveillance programs are ineffective against terrorists, particularly lone wolves who may exist outside of traditional social networks. Agencies have many questions to answer. Are there not more effective methods to preventing terrorism than dragnet surveillance? On what scientific basis have agencies enacted their current policies? Would Geiger counters not be more effective than surveillance dragnets in preventing nuclear terrorism? Where is the data to show that mass surveillance is or can be effective?
The bigger question, though, is whether the agencies involved considered the constitutional implications of their actions. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This empowers agencies to search and seize only with a warrant that particularly describes the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. A dragnet like PRISM would seem to obliterate any such protections. Did the NSA and those who empowered them to undertake surveillance consider PRISM to be constitutional? If so, why? Although only a slim majority of Americans are against monitoring everyone’s electronic communications for the purposes of preventing terrorism, the Constitution is very clear about the conditions necessary in order to seize evidence.
Ultimately, the essence of national security are the legal and constitutional frameworks upon which civilised countries are based. By shredding constitutional protections through unaccountable and secretive mass surveillance programs, governments may be giving up the national security that they claim to be seeking to save. Only with transparency and daylight can society properly assess which measures are effective and acceptable to public safety and public liberty, and implement them in an accountable way.
azizonomics 
Excellent article which approaches this problem in a cool scientific way which knocks the knee jerking of the neocons into space.
The ongoing legacy of hate, violence, death, and destruction of the Iraq war plus the children and soldiers left paying the price for the depleted uranium used in Fallujah for generations has never been brought into the light of the public arena. In fact, the authorities are actively hiding information and being obstructive.
The tragedies will never be told in full but surely we can stop this way of secretly taking decisions not proven to be effective and wasting billions on them while American infrastructure and cities rot and people in England die because of the iniquitous bedroom tax.
At least Bilderberg now exists but secret meetings of government ministers and corporate bosses involved in secret surveillance needs to cease.
‘Showed a lack of respect for authority’?? No-one with half a brain has anything but the utmost contempt for the ‘drunk with power’ cabals who now exert their ‘authority’ in Britain & the US of A). I have loudly declared my contempt for our corrupt British courts, both inside & outside the courts, & have been put in prison for it. To avoid more, I have been forced to flee the land of my birth (the land for which I fought in World War 2) & seek safety in the Republic of Ireland. In truth, they don’t really want me in prison at all, but in a Stalinist ‘Mental Hospital’ (so that all my exposure of the Legal/Judicial Mafia can be dismissed as the ramblings of a lunatic.) This was inadvertently let slip by no less a person than the top judge in England, Lord Chief Justice Lord Igor Judge, when he imposed two prison sentences on me (in absentia) on 23rd January 2013. He admitted that, had I been present, he would have been “keen to grasp a medical disposal” – words chillingly reminiscent of the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Problem’. Norman Scarth. Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:10:48 +0000 To: againstcorruption@hotmail.co.uk
The enemy is on its final legs when it uses the “mental” state card.
Pingback: On PRISM | Fifth Estate
I think this is the greatest news!
I mean, no more sexting or dirty messages. “You wouldn’t want to ruin the mood, I am paranoid they are listening to us, I mean I can’t get into the mood. Lets meet in person”
Social contact should be in person, not over cyberspace.
And may I remind the NSA. If people want to remain undetected they will adopt a new code language, and if Investigators are paying Arabic translators $500,000 in Victoria, they obviously don’t have a large pool to draw from, so lets hope the translator can understand “Street Code”. If they did, I would be suspect as to their allegiance.
The Terrorists won.
I have to smile I felt the same way. I believe the constitution is being violated in a different way as well. The Warrants may be of use in the wrong hands if Property and Land rights are seen concurrently with Tax Warrants or Warrants of Judgment. What if a corrupt official or employee of our Government are using them to do Land Takings?
I can testify to the fact already paid warrants where used in my town to secure loans on persons properties (veterans, deceased, trusts) behind the scenes. The little liar loans pale in comparison to the insurance policies benefits and redemptions and none have been the wiser.
Lets say a person goes to buy a home, make an offer to the seller. The first offer is declined. The buyer makes a second offer and the seller accepts. Yippee the American Dream. Except they are running both Purchase Agreements concurrently unknown to the PUBLIC/VICTIM/BUYERS?GOVERMENT.
At closing their agents do this scheme it is wide spread and systemically designed into most of the systems now presently in place.
Here it is!
At the Closing table when the underwriters backdate the TITLE POLICY INSURANCE by YEARS in the potential BUYERS name.(not the sellers) That makes the” BUYER the SELLER” and the “SELLER is BUYER” and is positioned to buy the deceased veterans land and home and even buy another property.
“Buy and Sell” and “Sell and Buy” or fraud upon our Government via insurance fraud and bail outs based on fraudulently executed documents to collect money from our Government. This is the view of what the demutualization that occurred back in the late 90s has done to us down here.
Yes and MERS writes checks I have one or two copies from a dummied up cause number here. I say Mothers Love)
Beam me up Scotty! I need to have a logical talk with Mr. Spauck)
I should have explained it happened to my daughter and my grandchildren. Their identities where signed over along with the children due to this behind the scenes maneuver they do. The seller signs away rights of themselves and heirs right of the bat. That is what I meant by Mothers Love.
It just different degrees of servitude. Although people seem to be more than happy with most of their chains, knowledge of the addition of this one link came a bit soon [it appears].
It is no good having a project “Prism”, when the enemy uses sound i.e. person to person clandestine meetings. What a waste of money.
The corruption of all systems becomes fairly apparent [as well as the absurdity of people’s mental states] when “they” take things outside of what is considered socially acceptable.
In other words, it’s perfectly reasonable to enslave a human being with “citizenship” simply because they happen to be born; and it seems really quite OK to take 50% of most people’s labor-value earned to run these nation states [and, of course, to transfer a great deal of this booty to individuals in power]; and few seems to get too bent of shape when the prevailing empire feels like stretching its legs by trampling another country [for their resources], but record their worthless conversations and emails, and people are up in arms, complaining about their loss of freedom and lack of privacy.
“HOW DARE THEY!!,” cry the masses.
It’s a world gone mad….but it’s the only one we got.