National Security Agency - Coursework Example

National Security Agency Introduction The National Security Agency (NSA) has the man assessing information in order to protect the US citizens from terrorists’ attacks. However, through their jurisdiction, the NSA/CSS are over stepping their mandate in the course of undertaking their duties. The citizens’ private information is being put at stake by the violation of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the NSA/CSS surveillance policies should be amended in order to coincide with the constitutional requirements. Privacy Yes, the Board’s recommendations would help bridge the gap that exists in the NSA surveillance program. Privacy as defined by Jeff Jarvis “… ethic of knowing someone else information...and whether sharing it further could harm someone.” He further adds that, prevention of accessibility is not enough; but the control of its usage and the interpretation of the information is the one that is vital. Jarvis confirms that there is the abuse of authority where the government seeks the citizens’ private information without permission and above all, one cannot tell what it plans to do with it. The Fourth Amendment stipulates “…the right of people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures…shall not be violated’ which on the contrary, is being abused by the same government in a big way. From the Amendment, the government’s authority has limits regarding the US citizens’ privacy. The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments primarily focuses on the privacy of the citizens from the government’s abuse (Jarvis 4). According to the National Security Agency mandate, one of its key commitments to the citizens is to “...act with integrity to advance the rights, goals and values of the nation” (NSA 1) which is sarcastic. The collection of the bulk data from the citizens’ phone calls without their consent is an open contradiction of their policy. The presidential select and the two judges failed to agree on the privacy issues among other items; where one judge supports the move while the other opposes it due to violation of the constitution (NSA 1). Jarvis proposes that in order to prevent privacy issues in the NSA, there should be restrictions regarding the usage of the citizens’ data. He provides that the restrictions should be upheld by an oversight team by the courts, the Congress, the media and generally the citizens. He further explains that the government should have a set of principles which explains the benefits and dangers of the citizens’ data being held. The principles set should be publicly expressed, so that the citizens can make informed decisions. Additionally, he explains that the Bill of Rights must control government’s authority and also publicly, have the provision that it can spy on the citizens secretly but on certain conditions (Jarvis 6).The Board recommended that the storage of metadata could be leased out to private companies or to private third parties in order to boost transparency, where accessibility of the information would be obtained through a court order (Liptak and Schmidt 2). Metadata Jarvis argues that there is a misconception by people that there should be a boundary of what is supposed to be known and what should not. This is termed as the concept of knowledge. The government gathers the people’s data but nobody knows the purpose of the information “… government holding unique powers is allowed to do with what it knows.” In his argument, metadata becomes public once it has been passed to a third party. In the event of the phone companies, the providers determine who is calling and the subsequent person receiving the call to complete the cycle. The government conspicuously depicts that it can collect such data without affecting the people’s privacy (Jarvis 5). Judge Leon commented that phones nowadays contain so much information that can reveal a lot of information about a person. However, Jarvis points out that too much knowledge in itself is not a problem. Bad things do not happen simply because of the information presence, but because of its wrongful use. Hence the control of information regarding its extent can lead to a system of tyranny and censorship (Jarvis 5). In Liptak and Schmidt there has been a huge controversy on the legality pertaining to collection of the citizens’ personal data. The NSA collects and stores the citizens’ phone numbers and their personal details in a bid to counter the foreign terrorists. The metadata records the US citizens’ conversations up to a maximum of 24 hours; which can track their physical location and their personal information, which can as well be used by other government agencies for targeting purposes (Liptak and Schmidt 2). Jarvis gives the opinion that information accessibility in itself is not bad, but the usage of the information against the person whether a foreigner or a citizen, is the legal wrong. The board recommends additional limits to be added on the security agencies usage and dissemination of information, regarding foreign and non foreign intelligence. The additional restrictions on the agencies capacities to investigate using any US citizen identifier are subject to section 702. Section 702 provides for fewer data collection from the citizens and the prohibition of particularized targeting system (PCLOB 7). Publicness Jarvis defines publicness as “...ethic of sharing your own information, whether doing so could help someone.” He demonstrates that even though someone might have released a piece of information knowingly, there must be systems to control the abuse of the information. In opposition of Reding who claimed that information should be forgotten once released, Jarvis counteracts that it can give other people the right to expose what may not be intended to be known. He also objects to the presumption of public privacy which prohibits revelation of the public officials’ acts. The presumptions will affect the journalists as well as researchers in collecting and analyzing data (Jarvis 5). Federal Judge Leon opposed that the metadata held by the NSA because it contained a lot of information which could reveal a lot of details regarding a person’s life. In his statement “…records...now reveal an entire mosaic... a vibrant… picture of the person’s life.” He explains that people nowadays have a unique connection with their phones as compared to the past years, and therefore interception of the information by the security agencies would otherwise lead to unwanted revelation of the people’s private lives (Jarvis 5). Jarvis offers the opinion that information should be controlled by relevant authorities in order to prevent distortion. According to the Board’s recommendations, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides that the information acquired by the security agencies should be minimized (PCLOB 9). Foreignness Vs Foreign Intelligence Purpose According to Jarvis the government should quit surveying the innocent US citizens as criminals. The information should only be sort if it’s beyond reasonable doubt. The over-surveillance on US citizens by the government is pure over stepping on its mandate. Ever since the happenings of the past major attacks in America, it has since remained peaceful (VanBuren 21). The Board recommends that changes in the targeting procedures will provide a guideline to the analysts by the provision of in-depth explanations. The explanations in the foreign intelligence purpose pertaining to targeting will exclusively assist the analysts in articulating better strategic targeting decisions. The analysts’ adequate decisions will assist the oversight team to review the decisions in order to make meaningful reviews out of them (PCLOB 8). Jarvis recommends that only in special situations with tangible facts and proper documentation, should the NSA conduct reverse targeting. He further adds that the NSA should have an oversight team which can check and streamline its actions on a regular basis. Hence section 702 provides that the oversight teams from the Director of National Intelligence Office and the Department of Justice ; should not evaluate such foreign intelligence purpose with the same criteria it analyses foreignness determinations. The board further stipulates that the NSA personnel are objected to employ an in depth rationale in assessing the foreignness and a conclusive oversight (PCLOB 8).Further, the Board stipulates that once the reviews have been made, there is the need for the analysts to be trained regarding its implementation. Through the training, there will be confidence that the analysts have articulated the required foreign intelligence purpose rationale (PCLOB 9). Minimization Procedure Jarvis provides that the monitoring of the peoples every move results in the targeting of the US citizens “…collecting data or is the equivalent of searching me or surveilling my every move” (Jarvis 6). This is usually a routine practice for most security agencies for the purpose of obtaining any information pertaining to the target. The information collected can be from the FISA authorities or any other data collected under section 702. One of the major challenges is that some of the agencies like the FBI do not separate between the US citizens and the non citizens when collecting such vital information’s. Therefore there is extreme violation of other people’s rights as well as the possibility of biasness (PCLOB 11). Jarvis illustrates that the NSA accessibility to people’s data should be with provisions and governed under the Bill of Rights. In order to correct such challenges, the Board recommends the importance of transparency and accountability. The Board stipulates that transparency and accountability will enhance the clearness of its operational practices. Another benefit is that the clarity measures will promote the FISA court to evaluate the constitutional and the statutory compliances with the minimization procedures. The minimization procedures will be tabled to the courts for verification whereby they can be approved by the government’s recertification applications. The Civil Board further recommend that before analysts conduct query search for any US person identify, they should first seek approval which will then be audited (PCLOB 11). Upstream and About Collection Jarvis argues that data cannot be kept anywhere so that the government can retrieve it anytime it needs. The data be it from credit companies, the internet or phone providers; they cannot offer the data to the government unless with a warrant or a documented evidence (Jarvis 6). The government through PRISM, obtains vital information directly from the internet service companies. The NSA obtains this information by force with the assistance from the companies in charge of maintaining those companies’ networks. This is in contrast because the internet service providers are the ones supposed to submit the information at their own free will. In this regard, the upstream collection incorporates a huge problem that the government will actually acquire domestic information which it’s not authorized to (PCLOB 13). Jarvis advices that there should be principles governing the citizens rights and interests and the information should be used with the citizens’ knowledge. The Board henceforth recommended that the NSA should filter out upstream information in order to avoid collecting pure domestic information. The Board also strategized that DOJ, NSA and some hindered telecommunication service providers in conjunction with the independent experts; should occasionally evaluate the filtering techniques. The acquisition of the authorized data prevents the interception of the domestic information (PCLOB 14). Conclusion Jarvis fears are justified and the issues raised represent the challenges faces by the many US citizens. The NSA policy should be amended before implementing its mandate. The NSA should acquire information through proper channels and authorizations in order not to infringe other people’s rights. Further, the NSA should also have an oversight team which can monitor its actions and prevent the foreigners’ discrimination. Hence, the Oversight Board recommendations should be acknowledged since it alleviates peoples’ privacy concerns. Works cited United States. National Security Agency. NSA/CSS Mission, Vision, Values. Washington : GPO, 2009. Liptak, Adam and Michael S. Schmidt. Judge Upholds NSA Bulk Collection Of Data On Calls. Jarvis, Jeff. The Primary NSA Issue Isn’t Privacy, Its Authority. The Guardian 30 december 2013.The New York Times 28 December 2013, natl, ed. A1. United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Part 6 Of The Civil Liberties And Privacy Oversight Board Report. Washington: GPO, 2014. Van Buren, Peter. 10 Myths about NSA Surveillance That Need Debunking. Mother Jones Jan. 2014. Read More