Homie 1

Homie

Professor Homie

Homie 17b

23 November 2014

NSA: The Hidden Truth

In what appeared to be a revelation of truth, the National Security Agency’s

controversy regarding the monitoring of American citizens has revived the debate of

valuing safety above privacy. Edward Snowden, former employee of the NSA, released

documents containing evidence of a government program formally known as PRISM.

The program forces U.S. Internet companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft to

hand-over their users’ personal records to the government. The privacy of citizens is

clearly being violated, but is it justified in the name of safety? Only through analyzing the

strengths and weaknesses of the program can we evaluate the legitimacy of its usage. The

U.S. is justified in interfering with our privacy because it is critical in crippling terrorist

plots, because citizens should have nothing to hide, and because the threat of a terrorist

attack would pose much greater harm to civil liberties.

Domestic surveillance programs play a pivotal role in preventing terrorist attacks.

Because of the abundance of information obtained, security officials are able to drill

down to the root cause of a plot before it unfolds. In fact, the NSA has empirically been

effective in breaking up terrorist plots. John Parkinson of ABC News explains, “More

than 50 potential terrorist attacks have been thwarted by two programs tracking more

than a billion phone calls and vast swaths of Internet data each day” (1). To this, critics of

domestic surveillance programs argue that the evidence suggesting the efficacy of the

programs prove merely correlation without any causation. In other words, they feel that
 Homie 2

the NSA programs did not directly stop these attacks from occurring. Jane Mayer of The

New Yorker refutes this misunderstood belief by describing what the PRISM program

actually does for the government, “Metadata and other new surveillance tools have

helped cut the average amount of time it takes the U.S. Marshals to capture a fugitive

from forty-two days to two days” (1). The evidence presented by Mayer explains the

reason why surveillance programs reduce the probability of conflict. The programs cut

the amount of time it takes to capture fugitives, meaning that law enforcement officers

can remove those who pose a public harm from the streets. In this instance, the benefits

of deterring terrorist outweigh the harms to personal privacy because the programs are

effective in foiling terrorism. Thus, the U.S. is justified in using surveillance programs to

ensure the safety of the citizens.

The second justification of the usage of domestic surveillance programs is that the

violations to privacy are overestimated because citizens have nothing to hide. Even the

average criminal—a drug dealer, a shoplifter, or even a peeping-tom, is highly unlikely to

get caught through the program. This is because the intention of the program is to

intercept terrorist activity that poses a threat to a larger body of people. So, if you want to

avoid coming into contact with the NSA, refrain from texting your best friend about your

plan to bomb a public event. However, at what point does the government stop before

going too far into personal lives? This is the common belief of those who oppose

domestic surveillance programs. Their argument is that despite the consequence of the

action, the fact that government invaded the privacy of its citizens is a concern should be

a concern to many. The reason why this argument does not hold true is because the NSA

only pays attention to a fraction of the data collected. Rick Moran from the American

Thinker notes, “The net effect is that NSA analysts look at 0.00004% of the world's
 Homie 3

traffic in conducting their mission—that's less than one in a million” (1). At the point in

which one out of a million messages is being looked at, not much privacy is being lost.

Nonetheless, the benefits derived from decreased terrorism outweigh the harms to

privacy. Although the most significant weakness to surveillance programs is the violation

of privacy, it still does not constitute reasons why the government needs to remove an

effective security tool.

The final justification for sacrificing some degree of privacy in the name of

security is explained by examining a world without domestic surveillance programs.

Without monitoring suspicious terrorist activity conducted on cell phones, emails, or the

Internet, terrorists would be free to communicate with one another without consequence.

Not having these government programs means that terrorist attacks are more likely to

happen. In the event that a terrorist attacked occurred, the absence of domestic

surveillance programs would result in the loss of life and civil liberties. As Professor

Cowell noted in class, Benjamin Franklin once stated that those who would sacrifice

freedom for security deserve neither. While Franklin brings up a valid point, he surely

had no idea that technology would someday assist terrorists in killing thousands of

people. After the Patriot Act was passed, the government was given more leeway

regarding the methods they use to track down terrorists; if the NSA scandal were brought

to the spotlight a year after the attacks on 9/11, then most people would not have a

problem with it. Changes must be made in the face of danger. In the late 1800’s the U.S.

Navy appeared extremely weak to the rest of the world, possibly increasing the chances

of our nation being “bullied.” It was not until the Navy Act of 1890 was passed that the

U.S. became known for having one of the largest and strongest Navys in the world.

Similarly, the benefits of having surveillance programs outweigh the harms of privacy
 Homie 4

because it makes our nation safer. Citizens cannot exercise their civil liberties without

being guaranteed their safety.

Considering the pros and cons related to the NSA’s activities that interfere with

privacy, it appears obvious that the benefits outweigh our nation’s value toward it.

Increased security has encouraged more responsible citizen behavior and lessened the

opportunity for terrorist attacks. Although civil liberties have been compromised, the

NSA’s relentless acts of protecting society have created opportunities for a better

prepared nation, including extended life spans.

 Homie 5

Works Cited

Mayer, Jane. "What’s the Matter with Metadata?" The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 6 June

2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. <http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/whats-the-

matter-with-metadata>.

Moran, Rick. "NSA Says They Only 'touch' 1.4% of Internet Traffic a Day." NSA Says They

Only 'touch' 1.4% of Internet Traffic a Day. The American Thinker, 11 Aug. 2013. Web.

23 Nov. 2014.

<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/nsa_says_they_only_touch_14_of_inter

net_traffic_a_day.html>.

Parkinson, John R. "NSA: 'Over 50' Terror Plots Foiled by Data Dragnets." ABC News. ABC

News Network, 18 June 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-

director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148>.