This is the angry statement of Edward Snowden towards United States (U.S.) President Barak Obama after he stated that “I will not scramble jets to get a 29-yearold hacker.” When these two statements of Snowden and Obama were published and broadcast on WikiLeaks and national broadcasts, respectively, it generated many supporters of Snowden around the world. However, the more important question is not about Snowden’s fate but rather, is “Is it justifiable for the government to spy on us for anti-terrorism purposes?”

PRISM, officially known as SIGAD US-984XN, is a mass electronic surveillance data mining program operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007. It was initiated with the “Protect America Act” under the Bush Administration, and has been operated under the supervision of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA). The existence of PRISM was not known until Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked it to The Guardian and The Washington Post during his Hong Kong trip six years after its initiation. According to Snowden, the extent of mass data collection was far greater than the public had thought and included what he characterized as “dangerous” and “criminal” activities. Indeed, some of the aspects of the leaked documents are shocking.

 

In the first step of the surveillance process, target analysts select targets and input into them the Unified Targeting Tool (UTT), which is a powerful computer system that identifies a target’s current locations, for example. FISA will then review the target using the stored data and validate the necessity of further data gathering. FISA can choose either to terminate the investigation on that target or give the agency a warrant to

continue the process. Later, after the targeting and mission management processes, a final targeting review will be conducted and its validity will be decided. If the target is considered dangerous, it will be labeled as hostile, and its identity will be distributed to the Electronic Communications Surveillance Unit (ECSU) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). With the powers granted by the warrant, the NSA and ECSU will gather more data from data providers such as Google to start further surveillance.

 

From the 41 PowerPoint slides Snowden provided, four of  which were published, several private technology companies were identified as participants in the PRISM program, including Facebook, Microsoft and Google. It was then further reported by The Washington Post that 98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft’s information. In return, these firms will receive immunity from legal actions since they are cooperating with the government’s requests. Snowden also disclosed that the NSA collected mass data from over 120 million subscribers of Verizon, the biggest telecommunications company in the U.S. The NSA was also accused of collecting vast amounts of records of e-mail and Internet usage of Americans from 2001 to 2011 via a data mining program codenamed “Stellar Wind.” 

 

The accusation went beyond the U.S. The documents also asserted that governments such as that of the United Kingdom (UK) also undertook mass interception of data. It is known that the NSA paid the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) of UK to execute several NSA requests; during the G20 London Summit, GCHQ intercepted the communications of foreign diplomats for unknown reasons.

 

Of course, none of these above has been admitted to by the U.S. government, and indeed, they are the interpretation of documents by a rogue former contractor. While the depth of the details that Snowden leaked is very convincing, the government has disputed many aspects of these details while strongly condemning Snowden. No matter whether Snowden’s claims are valid or not, it seems safe to say that the Obama Administration has lost the publics’ faith regarding on protecting their privacy.

 

 

The comments of the U.S. media are fairly one-sided. The New York Times charged Congress with ignoring that the extent of the surveillance programs have grown beyond their control and wrote that the PRISM program is a “perversion of the American justice system.” James Robertson, a former federal judge who served on the FISA court between 2002 and 2005, said that FISA is independent but with flaws since only the government’s side is represented effectively in its deliberations.

 

As imagined, the accused parties harshly disputed Snowden’s accusations. Shortly after the publications of the articles containing the disclosures, the U.S. Army restricted their personnel’s access to the website of The Guardian to prevent more disclosures of classified information. Also, UK Defense officials issued a confidential notice to the BBC and other British media to stop running any further stories related

to the surveillance programs including PRISM and the UK’s involvement in the matter.

 

While almost all the CEOs of the technology firms involved claimed they never gave the government direct access to their servers. Google CEO Larry Page relatively strongly stated that “any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.” However, the statement of the United States Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper does not completely align with Page’s statements.

 

Clapper pointed out that the reports of The Guardian and The Washington Post had numerous inaccuracies after he confirmed that the U.S. government had been using large Internet services companies such as Google and Facebook to collect information on foreigners outside the U.S. as a defense against national security threats. He also said that FISA is “designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the U.S, and cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person.”

 

On June 7, U.S. President Obama stated the importance of surveillance that “they help us prevent terrorist attacks.” He continued in a rather rare uncertain tone, “and the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers” were “worth us doing.” On the other hand, NSA Director Keith Alexander asserted in a resolute voice that the “irresponsible” media leaks have caused significant and irreversible damage to national security since now terrorists will change their tactics now that they know how the system functions.

 

American citizens, on the other hand, seem to have mixed reactions regarding this information. According to a poll conducted by TIME, more than half of the respondents approve of the former contractor’s decision to leak the details of the government surveillance program; similarly, 44 percent thought it was a “good thing” for him to do that, while 30 percent disagreed. However, an almost identical number of Americans – 53 percent – believe Snowden should be prosecuted for his illegal actions, while 28 percent asserted that he should not.

 

Interestingly, more Americans approve of the necessity of the surveillance programs than those who do not – 48 percent approve while 44 said no. The effectiveness is also recognized by many; 63 percent of the participants replied that the programs have “some” or “a great deal” of impact on securing the nation, whereas only 31 percent of them thought there was “not much” or “nothing at all.”

 

In other words, American citizens seem believe that it is necessary for them to know that such programs exist – and that a certain transparency is required – for such programs to be legitimate. Also, it is still illegal for whistleblowers such as Snowden to leak classified details of the government’s projects even if the government is trying to hide them from the public. Last but not least, it is necessary for such surveillance systems to exist to

secure the nation and the citizen’s physical wellbeing.

 

 

“Such surveillance programs as PRISM are a necessary evil,” said Professor Lee Kyung Ho (Graduate School of Information Management and Security). As indicated from the Boston Marathon bombing incident which happened on April 15, the first step to prevent terrorism is to predict a potential enemy’s intentions and plans and neutralize them.

 

However, since those threats will do their best to engage in unprecedented ways, “the most fundamental precautionary system lies on a ‘behavior based approach’ which examines an enemy’s behaviors from analyzing mass data,” Lee added. As proven by the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. is a central target of terrorism. With that being said, it is crucial for the government to control cyberspace – a space which has countless threats and no borders. Therefore, some assert that it is necessary for the government to spy on not only international signals sent from to the U.S., but also domestic signals. “Many hackings and terror attacks in Korea are conducted domestically; by terrorists living inside Korea, through local networks run by local servers,” explained Lee. This danger is no different in the U.S., or even worse. In order to counteract this situation, a more rounded data collection is necessary, including coverage of indirectly related fields such as education, finance and medicine.

 

However, Lee agreed with most of the criticisms against PRISM and the U.S. government that neutral monitoring of the surveillance processes is necessary to the program’s public acceptance. As powerful as the program is, the negative effect will be very influential if it was used with the wrong intentions. Therefore, the government has to be very careful when drafting policies that define the program’s actions and limits and in securing the data collected so that they do not fall into the wrong hands. Also, it must insure that the program cannot be wrongly used.

 

Indeed, drafting and implementing policies that satisfy both the security and privacy of citizens is a very difficult task. The policies must not only recognize privacy, but also other citizen rights assured by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the legitimate process of making such policies should “involve oversight committees with authoritative experts in these specific fields,” Lee stated in the interview.

 

 

Effects of the issue on the U.S. is foreign relations has also been a significant, if not the most, issue that the Obama Administration has had to deal with. In late June, when Snowden was still in Hong Kong, its government refused to extradite Snowden because the evidence against him was insufficient. “The U.S. is disappointed and disagrees with the determination by Hong Kong authorities not to honor the U.S. request,” said a Department of Justice spokesperson said.

 

In response, Hong Kong officials allowed Snowden to fly to Moscow on June 20. Moscow presented Washington with an even harder insult to swallow; when Snowden left the transit zone of a Moscow airport and entered the country after Russian authorities granted him a one-year asylum and temporary residence even though the U.S. has demanded Russia send Snowden home to face prosecution. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin granted his right to stay on condition he stops leaking U.S. secrets, the U.S. is still very displeased with Russia’s decision. “I was disappointed,” said Obama on NBC’s The Tonight Show, “even though we don’t have an extradition treaty with them, we traditionally tried to respect if there is a lawbreaker in their country.” Not to mention that although Obama will still go to the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, he will not be meeting Putin in a one-to-one meeting as originally scheduled to address

the issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

 

White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes mstated that the two countries will still cooperate on issues where they can find common ground. However, Obama’s decision on scrapping the talks with Putin might add more tension to the already-awkward relationship. The two countries are frequently at odds when addressing international issues, most recently in Syria where the U.S. accuses Putin of helping President Bashar Assad fund a civil war. The U.S. has also been a harsh critic of Russia’s violations on human rights. For Russia, the granting of asylum could be used as a counteraction to the criticisms regarding human rights.

 

Although to many people the tension between the U.S. and Russia might be worrisome, it is considered by many experts to have little long-term damage to the political relationships between the two countries. The reason is that there are no direct conflicts between the two nations and Russia actually helped with one of the U.S.’s priorities – keeping Snowden’s mouth shut.

 

 

It is still unknown how PRISM and related policies will change in the future. However, there are some clues to help predict what might happen. On July 31, the U.S. government declassified three documents regarding the PRISM program. Although a substantial amount of the files were redacted in black in order to prevent publishing some names of the firms and personnel involved, it is a good indication that the U.S. government will increase these transparency of the programs. Will this make U.S. citizens willing to allow such programs to continue to exist in their country? Nothing seems certain at this point.