In a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "NSA's Domestic Spying Grows As Agency Sweeps Up Data", a scary topic is discussed. The National Security Agency once confined to strictly foreign surveillance is now collecting data domestically. What kind of information? Well, they can look at your email, Internet sites you've been to, calls made and received on your cellphone, regular calls made and received on land-line phones, financial records (such as bank accounts, wire transfers, and credit card use) and airline information such as where you go and who you fly with. The NSA receives the "transactional" data from other agencies and private companies. The data is then analyzed to reveal suspicious patterns.
A number of NSA employees have voiced concerns that the agency maybe "overstepping its authority by veering into domestic surveillance." The article poses the serious question "Can the government examine such a large array of information without violating an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy?" This question has yet to be answered by Capital Hill. There is much political debate over the need to change the traditional definition of privacy rights. Donald Kerr, the deputy director of national intelligence said, "Since many people routinely post details of their lives on social-networking sites such as Myspace, their identity should not need the same protection as in the past. Instead only their "essential privacy" or "what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs" should be veiled."
This scares me. Because we, the citizens, are using networking sites on a daily basis, this opens up debate as to whether or not we "deserve" the same level of privacy? The article talks about how the data-sifting takes place. Say for example, a suspected terrorist lives in San Diego. The NSA would begin monitoring that community and collecting and analyzing all electronic communications into and out of the city. If I have a friend who lives in San Diego and I email or call her, my communications would be collected.
I definitely think this article should be read. At this very moment, Congress is debating domestic spying powers and whether or not telecommunications and other companies who hand over information to the FBI and NSA should be immune from liability for assisting government surveillance. It is important we keep abreast on this topic because it affects all of us, you and me, whether or not we realize it.
3 comments:
Dawn-It scares me too! It is so easy to take things out of context when overhearing a conversation, snooping in someone's email, etc. This morning I was watching Law and Order and the NSA had been collecting information on woman who's conversations had several trigger words in them (such as suicide bomber). It turns out this woman was an art dealer and "suicide bomber" was the title of a painting. Now granted Law and Order is a completely unrealistic and far fetched tv show, but I don't believe that particular part was all that unbelievable (unfortunately). I think the only people who would not have a problem with the NSA doing these kinds of things are the people who work for the NSA!
Definitely scary. And I certainly haven't given up my expectations of privacy just because I'm involved in various social networks. Every time I hear something like this on/in the news I get a sick feeling in my stomach. I'd rather be less secure, thank you, despite the fact that I lead a mostly boring life.
My brother-in-law is an American working in Saudi Arabia as a computer consultant. One of my sister's sons used to be in Finland studying and another in Africa in the Peace Corps. Things are calmer now than they were a couple of years ago but I used to worry about my sister having someone from the NSA
come and haul her away for being part of a subversive network - my family.
Post a Comment