The Surveillance Controversy and the Consequences of Technology

The controversy over the National Security Agency's surveillance programs is not a mere kerfuffle, like other "scandals" which often dominate the news.  I thought an opinion piece would provide a better perspective than the reader will hear or see on MSNBC, CNN, or "Crossfire-like" news shows.

What is central to this issue is one factor that cannot be denied or ignored.  As technology brings us more convenience, more connection, and more ways of communicating with others across the globe, we also become less safe.  That is because the bad guys use these methods as well, to plot their nefarious deeds while evading law enforcement authorities.  And, the fact that these communication applications are free (Facebook, Twitter, Skype) and available globally means that there is no cost to the bad guys for staying ahead of the game.  Because such is true in all war, whether it is waged with bullets, words, or intelligence.  The high ground, or being ahead of your opponent, is essential to victory.  That is why all of the more recent successful ventures in communication and social networking (Facebook, Twitter, Skype) are naturally included in NSA's surveillance, along with email and texting.

Case in point.   After 9-11, our intelligence authorities realized that they could snoop on bad guys using cell phones, voice prints, and text messages, and find them anywhere on the globe.  Also, we could kill them using triangulation of the cell phone signal and a missile fired from a Predator UAV.  Tracking and disposing of terrorists was so easy then.

A simple technique to defeat
surveillance program, sent
via text message with attached photos

The terrorists caught on and used the next innovation/ feature to evade detection. Bin Laden may have sent out messages by mule from his hideout in Abbottabad, but other terrorists exploited the fact that the average cell phone was capable of sending photos from phone to phone.  Computers could analyze text in real time, find voiceprints in real time, and triangulate cell signals, but they couldn't analyze pictures; they couldn't analyze pixels and distinguish between a photo of a couple on the beach or a terrorist holding an AK-47.  So terrorists began communicating by sending pictures with handwritten messages (see the silly example on the right).  It became a very efficient and elegant way to defeat massive surveillance programs. 

THAT's why we need these programs.  As our marketplace provides us with more efficient and innovative ways to stay connected, this same marketplace is providing the terrorists with newer ways to plot their deeds.  When combined with a porous border, easy access to our university system, a welcoming immigration policy, and political correctness,  it is inevitable that the very cultural characteristics which make us America also make us vulnerable.

I'm not strictly defending NSA here.   It would be prudent for Congress to authorize a "citizen advocate" who represents the public at the FISA court proceedings, and a "citizen privacy board" whose job it is to ascertain that NSA is doing nothing wrong with the metadata they collect and store.  [These are not my ideas, incidentally, but they derive from the suggestions of Greta Van Susteren.]

And, lest you think that this is unique to American history, I'll remind everyone that America suffered similar problems in the 1920s, 1950s, and even the 1800s, when our open borders posed risk to citizens.  In the 1920s, anarchists and communists flooded into America from eastern and southern Europe.  In the 1950s, war refugees who, in truth, were either enemies or Communist spies flooded into America when we opened our generous arms to a broken continent.  We have lived through such problems and we no doubt will survive again. 

The dastardly Thenardier and his wife

Victor Hugo's classic, Les Miserables, has an amusing wrap-up about one character at the end of the novel.  When the main story is over, and the hero and protagonist (Jean Valjean) has passed on, Hugo's novel describes -- surprisingly -- an immigrant who sails across the sea from France to America.  It is none other than the villain Thenardier -- the crooked innkeeper and the wicked guardian of innocent Cosette.   Hugo's story has Thenardier leaving France and becoming an American slavetrader.  [Note:  you won't find this scene in any of the recent movies or theatrical productions -- you'll have to read the original version of the novel.]

No doubt Hugo closed out the story of Thenardier to reveal just how depraved he was.  But that Hugo chose this for the last mention of the fate of Thenardier is clear.  Even back in 1862, when Les Miserables was published, our nation had already earned its reputation for open doors and being a haven for the lawless.  To Victor Hugo, it was perfectly logical for Thenardier to become an American and prosper, albeit at an illegal and immoral trade.

The USA survived in the 19th century and we will survive now.  But it is time for another delicate balancing between privacy and protection.