What Is The Balance Between Privacy And Security?

"There is no such thing as perfect security, only varying levels of insecurity." - Salman Rushdie

Congress Debating The PATRIOT Act

This week, we tackle the never-ending debate between security and privacy.  Is there a balance which can be struck between the two?

When major leaks of classified American intelligence documents and programs were published in 2012, many people began to question the ways in which the United States gathers and stores personal information used in the fight for American security.  Since then, this debate over security and privacy has lapsed somewhat.  Discussions still surface occasionally in films like The Fifth Estate and a recent interview between John Oliver and Snowden.  However, many people can't remember some of the most important details of these events.  Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden... It may be tough to sort out who all did what in terms of leaking classified information.  Though all three are guilty of releasing classified information to the public, they have done so in different manners and with differing degrees of severity.  So here is some background into each of these individuals, how they released the data, and what has become of them.

Julian Assange, Co-Founder Of Wikileaks

First, let's examine the case of Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  An Australian journalist, Assange helped found the website Wikileaks, which hosts a wide variety of documents provided by whistle-blowers and activists looking to expose otherwise hidden (and sometimes nefarious) information. After the release of hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents, Assange drew the attention of American officials and sought refuge in the embassy of Ecuador in London (Ecuador granted him asylum in their embassy).  He remains there today, still running Wikileaks and publishing articles on information sharing and transparent governance. 

Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, was a solider in the United States Army and worked as an intelligence analyst.  In 2010, she stole hundreds of thousands of electronic documents from the military and provided them to Wikileaks.  Many of these documents contained information about sensitive diplomatic communications.  This seems benign at first, but the resulting backlash damaged U.S. relations with several countries (especially Germany).  Secrets are critical for maintaining healthy relationships because countries basically need to lie to each other.  This sort of leak can seriously harm relationships, just like having every bad thing you ever said about someone released to the Internet.  The documents also revealed information about sensitive missions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a controversial report on an airstrike in Baghdad (a lot of civilians were killed in this airstrike).  Unfortunately, sketchy things and serious mistakes happen all the time in the fog of war.  While it is important for citizens to be informed of the actions of its military (within reason),  these leaks were done en masse and without removing information such as agent cover identities (potentially harming local informants or U.S. collaborators in the region). 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Who Didn't Like Finding Out Her Phones Were Bugged

No to be confused with Manning and Assange, Edward Snowden's leak of information has taken on a slightly different tone.  As a contractor for the National Security Agency, he worked with some of the agency's most advanced data gathering tools and programs, many of which were used to gather information on U.S. citizens (the most well known being a program called PRISM).  In contrast to Manning and Assange, Snowden has been much more calculated in his release of information, instructing a team of professional journalists to remove any information which could compromise specific people, operational locations, or programs targeting known terrorist organizations.

So far, the information released has mostly been the basic details about what the programs are and what they do.  The revelations show that a large amount of the data collected has had little to do with directly fighting threats to national security (due to the way most programs automatically intercept and archive data).  Instead, most of it ends up sitting in large data storage facilities such as the one which recently completed in Utah.  However, this isn't surprising given the sheer size of the data collected.  The revelation of this information has likely forced the Intelligence Community to re-evaluate some of its information gathering methods.  However, even this more measured release of data is not without risks to U.S. security and intelligence gathering methods.

Snowden, Now Living In Exile In Russia

Currently, Snowden is in self-imposed exile in Russia, but the U.S. government has been trying to bring him back into the country to face trial.  Many countries allow for extraordinary rendition, the (semi-legal) process of moving someone across international borders to face trial.  However, Russia is one such country that won't allow this for the United States (partially due to the strained relations between the two).  For now, Snowden's future is uncertain, as are the impacts of his revelations.

So what does it all mean?  There will always be some trade off between security and freedom.  For now, the data collected has been used for relatively benign purposes.  The NSA doesn't care about what you posted on Facebook last night or that drunk text you sent to you ex.  When the target of these measures is radical terrorists seeking to kill innocent people, it isn't so bad.  Most people who collect and handle this data truly are fighting to make the country safer and are not at all concerned with your personal data.  Still, privacy advocates have legitimate concerns about how much data is too much.  And the potential for problems can arise if the definition of an enemy changes to something a little broader than radical terrorists.  Without proper oversight, there is always the potential for abuse in the system.

The NSA Headquarters

In all, the data collection programs, the PATRIOT Act, and all the other security measures authorized in the wake of 9-11 were probably issued with the best intentions in mind.  It is easy to question the value of programs like these in the relative safety of a post-"post-9-11" America, but it is even more critical to evaluate them in times of crisis.  Whether or not you agree that these data collection and intelligence programs are necessary, they have clearly had an impact on the dialogue of security vs privacy in recent years.  The release of classified information always presents risks to national security and can impede the ability of government officials to do their jobs.  But since the information is now out there, we may as well utilize the opportunity to evaluate some of America's security measures to ensure we strike the best possible balance between safety and privacy.

TL;DR: Sometimes trading privacy for security is necessary, sometimes it isn't.  But we can't make this distinction without first informing ourselves.