I have tried to be an observer of the NSA meta-meltdown here at dKos over the past weeks, even as I have also tried to keep straight all the programs, protocols, and technologies unveiled by everyone from leakers to the NSA itself.
After watching yet another shouting match in yet another diary, though, I decided to throw my own take on it into the ring. I mean, what's one more analysis between friends, right? And who knows, perhaps we might find at least two bullet points out of ten that we can agree on. So, let's give it a shot.
First of all, the diary title exactly says where I am right now. Note the "right now" -- I reserve the right to move one way or the other as new information warrants.
Second of all, I'm going to try to organize my thinking into short bullets. That way, at least we can agree or disagree by outline point, rather than just celebrate or denigrate the whole thing. Oh and by the way, please read ALL the points before firing off that agitated all-caps comment.
On to the points:
1. The collection of phone metadata is not new, and is not in itself that threatening. Records of calls have been available to law enforcement in one form or another for a long time, and frankly, having a database where anti-terrorism agencies could quickly determine a web of contacts radiating out from a suspected terrorist seemed to me to be a logical tool to have.
2. The collection of location data along with the metadata, on the other hand, is a new wrinkle, and seems to move from "analysis" to "surveillance." No need to put a "tail" on me to see where I go -- just pull it from the database. This moves closer to some sort of line, for me.
3. The collection of content for access later is another step along the continuum. Again, I understand the original thinking (I think): we'll collect it all, store it all, but only pull it out and actually "consume" it under court order. If I was charged with protecting a nation from terrorist attack, I can see how I would get here -- but see the later points.
4. The argument that all these various companies have had all this data for years doesn't wash and is irrelevant. Target may know I need diapers before I know it -- but the last I checked, Target doesn't have the power to lock me up, charge me with a crime, or kill me with a drone. With that power comes certain constraints on that power.
5. Arguing that we should have known this was going on also doesn't wash. Yes, we knew about the AT&T splitter during the Bush years. And yes, we've suspected some of this along the way. But there is a difference between wondering or suspecting, and being TOLD that your government is collecting not only call metadata, but also actual content, and not just calls, but your emails, your posts, and almost anything you do over a wire. Having the court order where you can actually read it is quite a slap in the face for some.
6. One of the biggest concerns is the lack of oversight. The FISA court seems, at first blush, to be a sham. Saying No just 10 times out of 15,000 is a sure way for a girl to be called Easy. And the Catch-22 of "once we tell you, you can't discuss it" would do Kafka proud.
7. The other big concern is the continual erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. It's an interesting question: if the government only stores the data, and doesn't look at it, is it an unreasonable search and seizure? I'm willing to concede that there is a discussion to be had here -- but how do we know, without transparency and oversight?
8. Finally, there is the elephant in the room -- what else do we not know? If the government was doing all of this under cover of national security, what else are they doing? What else are they about to do? One of the slides in the leaked deck mentioned going after Dropbox next. There are rampant speculations about hacking our phones, and our computers. How about our companies and their data? What about free speech, and using this database to track dissidents and critics? Are we there yet? Who knows?
9. And one more thing that isn't being discussed enough -- the Panopticon effect. If you don't know what it is, click the link. I worry that just the fear of being surveilled will cause people to keep their heads down, not make waves, and begin that slow transformation to a fear-based people. (Some would say we are already there.)
The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire not in a single battle or decision, but in a series of decisions, of yielding of power to the authorities. We are not even close to a dictatorship, or an overt police state, and to say so is reckless and unhelpful. We are not at the "OMG" stage yet.
But neither are we at a {yawn} stage. We are past that. We have a government that is ramping up more and more powerful surveillance and data collection programs, and if we do not insist on open discussion and reform, and transparency and the separation of powers and the rule of law, we will move inexorably to the point where we can no longer control our government.
Now is the time for that discussion, and for putting controls in place. Now is the time for throwing out both {yawn} and "OMG," and for being the adults at the table. We must be both reasonable and insistent, and be willing to both listen and to speak. Our democracy must figure out how to remain a democracy in this 21st-century world, and we must help it do so.