National Security Agency - Case Study Example

National Security Agency Introduction The National Agency (NSA) is a cryptanalysis agency used by the US government for protection towards the state’s security information. It is composed of the signals of intelligence (SIGINT), product and services of information assurance, computer network operations (CNO) which aid in gaining a decision advantage for nation and allies in all circumstances. The mission of the agency is to take the challenge of preventing the access to sensitive information concerning security of the nation by foreigners. The agency uses signals of intelligence to collect, process, destroy from foreign signals so as to protect the defense operations of the military. The agency as well, helps the Network Warfare Operations in defeating terrorists and all their organizations, alongside upholding US laws and protecting privacy and civil liberties (United States 1). Questions raised by features of NSA surveillance program There is a disagreement expressed by two judges and a presidential panel discussed by Adam Liptak & Michael S. Schmidt, as they discuss the opposite conclusions reached by these parties concerning the legality of phone records as used by the agency. The ruling by Judge William H. Pauley in the New York was similar to that of Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington University, stating it to be a matter and antimatter. The American Civil Liberties Union being the party that that had presented the case expressed their disappointment regarding the decision as an understatement to privacy implications of government surveillance. The justice department on the other hand was pleased with the idea that the NSA bulk telephony metadata collection was found lawful (Adam & Michael 2). Judge Pauley moreover approved of the importance of the program, citing an argument by a former director of FBI who stated that the program might have caught the hijackers of September 11, 2011 since it would have helped NSA to provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation with the missing information about the where bouts of Al-Mihdhar. Judge Leon in Washington expressed his disapproval saying the government had not been able to make a case of how the program would aid in protecting the nation against attacks. The government held a middle position concerning the program and recommended the implementation of a less intrusive measure. Group recommendation therefore was the disapproval of the government holding the telephone metadata and instead considered that the metadata was better held by a private party or private third party, where information would be obtained using a court order (Adam &Michael 3). The disparity however between the views held by the two judges however continue and at the end, Judge Pauley attributes the frustrations in unchanged technological changes to those in customer relationship with the telecommunication providers that has remained unchanged since 1979 (Adam & Michael 4). Jeff Jarvis acknowledges the work the views held by judges Leon and Pauley concerning the legality of NSA’s program. He however fears that the question of privacy may not only impact on the knowledge of what is as expected and what is not expected to be known but on freedom of speech as well. He believes that privacy is an argument of authority. Jeff states that “it is not so much what government (or anyone else) is allowed to know but what government, holding unique powers, is allowed to do with what it knows” (Jarvis 5). He brings an argument that the issue should not be on whether the metadata should be publicly or privately held since once held by a third party it could no longer be private, giving an example of an information on an envelope that had to be known by other people on the way other than just the sender and the receiver. Concerning telephone information also he argues that the government cannot obtain the information without affecting privacy this is because the companies that own the phones as well have information concerning who places and receives calls. Concern is as well raised concerning Judge Leon’s argument saying that some information is too much to have. Jeff says that “If we start to say that bad things can happen merely if knowledge exists, then too soon we fall into the trap of controlling the extent of knowledge” (Jarvis 5) and attributes this to a source of censorship and tyranny. He still raises concern about the issue of privacy in public as this would be a hindrance to journalists reporting as well as collection of data by researchers. Jeff defines privacy as “an ethic of knowing someone elses information (and whether sharing it further could harm someone) and publicness as an ethic of sharing your own information (and whether doing so could help someone)” (Jarvis 6). He expresses his views stating that the restrictions to NSA should be towards their seeking and using information without a person’s suspicion to crime, which should be documented. He views that government should also not seek for information unless it has a purpose to do so. He thinks that the question of where storage of information should be should be governed by different principles preferably consumer principles that allow transparency to what is done with the information. He expresses his disagreement to the assumption that metadata is bad and dangerous since this data might be important later for instance in case of data concerning a case of prostate cancer surgery he however thinks that this data should be held anonymously. The right protection should be offered for this data and access by government governed by different set of laws. He however concludes that the primary issue for NSA is the government overreach and oversight absence and not the presumed privacy and technology. Recommendations The implementation of the board’s recommendation would however help to alleviate Jeff’s fears concerning how the government might end up using personal communication data, since it offers a safeguard to privacy and civil liberties. It provides a balance between privacy, civil rights and national security. The board as well offers recommendations concerning the efficacy of government surveillance Jeff states that his fear is not on privacy but on the governments’ authority to use the information in its possession (Jarvis 4). The first recommendation is the revision of the targeting and tasking procedures (Recommendations 7). The procedures are to be reviewed so as to be in compliance with the statutory requirements. The review of the procedure will address the issue that the government is allowed to conduct surveillance without having a warranty. It will provide parity between foreignness determination and foreign intelligence purpose determination concerning the required level for explanation. The recommendation however expects NSA to review their procedures so as to require a more detailed written document explaining the purpose for foreign intelligence. The board therefore believes that the government is in a position to amend this in concern to their targeting procedures. The second recommendation by the board as well, helps to alleviate the fears raised. It concerns person queries and the review of this is concerned with limiting the use of the information collected for foreign intelligence purpose. The extent then of the use of information in the hands of the government should then be determined. This will therefore limit the government’s use of personal information in its possession as it deals with an issue that Jeff terms as “the extent to which government holding unique power is allowed to do with what it knows”. The third recommendation by the board is NSA minimization procedure permitting the agency to query data collected for the purpose of foreign intelligence. This concerns the metadata of section 702 communication. The government’s contribution to this process is writing guidelines that are to be followed by analysts, and giving a statutory explanation to the meaning of foreign intelligence information which under FISA has a narrower definition if it concerns US persons as compared to when it concerns non US persons. This will limit the access of information acquired unless there is an intelligence reason. The fourth recommendation is the FISA role which requires the government’s submission to provide targeting sheets for the court to be able to carry out random samples for NSA query terms involving US person identifiers. This provides information to the court concerning the minimization procedures by the government, and whether the procedures need to be amended. These will aid in limiting the government’s ability to seeking information without having a reasonable cause (Jarvis 6). The next recommendation by the board is for the government to incorporate its rules for operation which are not reflected in the FISA court certification orders, into the submission to the FISA court. This ensures that the government observes the required minimization procedures by FISA court as well as the guidelines of the attorney general and the statute. This ensures that judges acquire a generalized understanding of the program that enables them to make informed decisions. This also ensures government compliance to the use of information and thus a remedy to the concern by Jeff about how the government is able to access data (Jarvis 6). The recommendation concerning the review by NSA concerning communication acquired and that concerning avoidance of collection of purely domestic information ensures that only information that is useful for the purpose of foreign intelligence is collected thus irrelevant domestic information is not obtained (Recommendations 14). The government in collaboration with telecommunication authority should ensure the use of the right technology to filter the domestic information and retain only what is required. Recommendation concerning accountability and transparency of the government ensures that the government discloses its minimization procedures and thus being accountable and transparent to the public that it serves (Recommendations 15). This further helps to control the extent of the government’s information use. Read More