We Negate Resolved: Mass Surveillance

Anrey Peng

September 28, 2014

Forensics Essay 2014

We negate Resolved: Mass surveillance is not a justified method of governmental intelligence gathering.

Mass surveillance is a justified method of governmental intelligence gathering. An example of this is National Security Agency surveillance. National Security Agency Surveillance directly prevents terrorist plots from occurring. According to James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security, there have been 60 Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11. Of these sixty, fifty-three were thwarted long before the public was ever in any danger, due in large part to combined efforts of United States law enforcement and intelligence provided by metadata collection

by the National Security Agency. Furthermore, of these sixty plots, forty nine are considered to be homegrown, or domestic, and, according to Marshall C. Erwin of the United States Congressional Research Service, a majority of the terrorist plots stopped utilized the phone records possessed by the National Security Agency. Several of these attacks were potentially major, like the failed bombings of the New York Stock Exchange and the planned bombings of the New York City subway system. Although those opposed to National Security Agency surveillance will say that programs run by the National Security Agency had no part in stopping the terrorist plots to bomb the New York subway system, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation director Sean Joyce, PRISM, a program run by the National Security Agency, contributed to law enforcement making arrests that averted a terrorist plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange. Joyce went on to say that, without PRISM Najibulla Zazi, an Afghan-American planning to bomb the New York subway system would not have been identified. The use of PRISM in identifying Zazi, who later confessed to plotting to bomb the New York subway system, saved countless amounts of lives. Additionally, according to Walter Pincus, a professor at the Stanford University’s Stanford in Washington program, intelligence officials later reported that had the current National Security Agency program existed, it would have been able to identify 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar, and could possibly have prevented the September 11th attacks.
Additionally, National Security Agency Surveillance contributes to a decrease in general crime. Surveillance causes criminals to hesitate to perform crimes they would otherwise perform if they knew they were not being watched. Surveillance has proven to decrease crime in several cases. According to a study by the Community Oriented Policing Services, an agency within the United States Department of Justice, there have been decreases in crime with surveillance in several cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington DC. These decreases were due to the fact that the criminals knew that they were being watched and did not want to be caught. This study went on to say that this surveillance also saved the local government money. In the case of Baltimore, every one dollar spent on camera implementation yielded more than a one dollar and half in savings. These monetary savings include public safety and criminal justice expenditures, as well as the monetary costs of the prevented harms to victim. Surveillance has proven to decrease crime, which negatively affects thousands of people each and every day, and will continue to do so.
Thirdly, National Security Agency Surveillance has decreased and stopped drug trade throughout America.

According to John Shiffman and Kristina Cook of Reuters, the Special Operations Division, a sector of the Drug Enforcement Administration which was made to receive tips from the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies, conducted Project Synergy, a crackdown on drug manufacturers and wholesalers that spanned over 35 states and resulted in 225 arrests. The National Security Agency also helps in making the Drug Enforcement Agency a more efficient program. In fact, also according to John Shiffman and Kristina Cook of Reuters, current and former Drug Enforcement Agency agents stated that the Special Operations Division’s tips, which are provided in part by the National Security Agency, “have enabled them to catch drug smugglers that may have gotten away”. National Security Agency surveillance assists in the war on drugs, which prevents drug smugglers and drug lords from gaining power. Additionally, a reduction in the number of drug smugglers and producers doing business inside of the United States results in fewer people using drugs, and a reduction in the amount of people starting drugs, which results in less people dying from drug related

disorders.
Furthermore, National Security Agency surveillance is not a violation of constitutional rights.

As we already know, the National Security Agency has already stopped about forty-nine homegrown terrorist plots in the United States. Now had these plots actually gone through and happened, many lives would have been lost. In fact, according to President Obama, lives have been saved directly because of the program. Opponents of mass surveillance may argue that the National Security Agency is violating rights, but no rights are being violated at all. People still possess their constitutional rights, including their rights to free speech, their rights to practice their religion, their freedom of the press and other the rights provided in the Bill of Rights. According to Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute, the National Security Agency only collects metadata, or data regarding the person who made the call, the location, and other general information, but not the name of the person linked to the phone number. In 1979, in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that using pen registers to track phone calls was not unconstitutional. Pilon goes on to state that, the names linked to the phone number are only granted once the National Security Agency is granted a warrant, just as required by the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, once a warrant is granted to view the contents of the communication, that content can only be used for matters of national

security. According to Richard Epstein, law professor at the University of New York, this case also applies to the National Security Agency’s collection of metadata. This means that the National Security Agency’s collection of metadata was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, according to John Yoo of the National Review, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects the contents of communications, not dialed phone numbers, which is what metadata represents, showing that National Security Agency metadata collection is not unconstitutional. Yoo furthers that Congress has actually approved a change in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act allowing the National Security Agency to maintain a collection of phone metadata. Yoo goes on to say in the same article that interception of the contents of foreign emails is also not a violation of the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment does not protect foreign communications entering the United States. So in reality, no rights are being taken from citizens by the National Security Agency’s collection of metadata.
Additionally, the National Security Agency’s actions are monitored by external bodies within the federal government. The National Security Agency is under oversight from the Department of Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Furthermore, external bodies, such as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are in place to ensure that actions by the National Security Agency adhere to United States laws. These external bodies also serve to regulate the National Security Agency’s actions, and inspections and investigations serve to ensure the National Security Agency operates with integrity. This regulation of National Security Agency’s actions and investigations and inspections of the National Security Agency ensure that all actions by the agency adhere to the law and do not violate the rights of the people of the United States.
Sixth, the public actually approves of National Security Agency surveillance. In a 2013 national survey, the Pew Research Center finds that a majority of Americans, around 56 percent, say that the National Security Agency’s telephone information database is an acceptable way for the government to try to prevent terrorism, while only 41 percent say it is unacceptable. The article goes on to say that 62 percent of adults in the United States believe it is more important for the federal government to investigate terrorist threats, than it is for the federal government to protect their personal privacy. Furthermore, only 34% of the population surveyed indicated that it is more important for the government to not intrude on one’s privacy, even if it was at the cost of hindering the investigation of a terrorist threat. Furthermore, according to Business Insider, people identifying themselves as part of an independent political party have a 58% approval rate of PRISM, the National Security Agency’s electronic metadata collection tool, while Republicans have 67% approval rate for PRISM, and Democrats have a 76% approval rate of the PRISM program. A majority of the population believes that National Security Agency surveillance is acceptable, even if it encroaches on certain personal privacy rights, which shows that mass surveillance and metadata collection by the National Security Agency is justified.
Opponents of National Security Agency surveillance may say that mass surveillance leads to large amounts of false positives, detrimenting innocent people who have done nothing wrong. However, the impacts of a false positive in an area being surveyed are most likely just an inconvenience for the person who was incorrectly identified as a terrorist. When compared to the effects of mass surveillance: over 60 terrorist plots prevented, including potentially major events, such as the bombing the the New York Stock Exchange, and the New York City subway systems bombings, and a decrease in crime and drug use, the impacts of false positives are greatly outweighed. The number of lives saved due to metadata collection by the National Security Agency have a much larger impact than the minor inconveniencing of a few people who have been incorrectly identified as terrorists.