Germans protest U.S. data-collection programs at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin. (Digitale Gesellschaft/Flickr)In the public debate thus far over the NSA's mass surveillance programs, Americans have obsessed over our right to protect our emails, phone calls, and other communications from warrantless spying. But an issue that is just as important has been almost completely ignored: should the U.S. government be collecting the communications of foreigners without a warrant or any suspicion of wrongdoing? Unlike spying on U.S. citizens, where the government may well be breaking the law, spying on foreigners is almost certainly legal. But is it wise? We don't think so. Unfettered U.S. spying on foreigners will cause serious collateral damage to America's technology companies, to our Internet-fueled economy, and to human rights and democracy the world over. Rampant surveillance harms both privacy and our long-term national security. Foreigners don't vote in American elections, so perhaps it's not surprising that U.S. law throws them under the privacy bus. "If you are a U.S. person," President Obama (inaccurately) assures us, "the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls." But the government doesn't disguise its broad snooping on foreigners. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper confirmed recently that the NSA "targets foreigners located overseas for a valid foreign intelligence purpose." The legal basis for wide-scale Internet spying on foreigners is set out in black and white in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows collection of "foreign intelligence information," a grant of authority which goes well beyond counterterrorism or national security to include "information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to ... the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States." In the original version of FISA, individuals could only be targeted if they were "agents of foreign powers," but 2008 amendments to the statute did away with that limitation. Thus, FISA as it now stands authorizes warrantless surveillance of any non-U.S. individual reasonably believed to be located abroad, allowing for the interception of the most private kind of information so long as it "relates to" U.S. foreign affairs. That language is broad enough to allow the U.S. to seize almost any sort of foreign communication, on the grounds that a communication might relate in some way to a foreign-affairs interest of the United States. For foreigners who don't regularly read American surveillance statutes, this all came as an unpleasant surprise. And the details of how the NSA administers the mass surveillance programs do not make the surprise any more palatable. Individuals subject to NSA surveillance are almost never notified. The proceedings authorizing the surveillance are secret. The orders and directives are classified. The Internet companies that respond to the U.S. government's information demands are under gag order, or otherwise obligated not to disclose. And from a foreigner's perspective, all this happens at the request of a government they can't hold to account and is approved by a secret foreign court they can't petition. In addition to its broad legal authority to spy on foreigners, the U.S. now has a distinct technological advantage in doing so. In the past, the nature of the telecommunications infrastructure meant that NSA commonly had to operate abroad to intercept in real-time phone calls between non-Americans. But today, most communications flow over the Internet and a very large percentage of key Internet infrastructure is in the United States. Thus, foreigners' communications are much more likely to pass through U.S. facilities even when no U.S. person is a party to a particular message. Think about a foreigner using Gmail, or Facebook, or Twitter -- billions of these communications originate elsewhere in the world but pass through, and are stored on, servers located in the U.S. With so few legal or technical checks on the U.S. government's power to snoop, Internet users look to U.S. Internet companies to serve as gatekeepers. Fortunately, some U.S.
Sent by gReader
Western Europe's burgeoning Islamic population continues to spark concerns about Muslim assimilation and a cultural divide.
Sent by gReader
- Sapient NitroSr. Associate - Business Consulting, present
Stephen Biddle and Max Boot Discuss U.S. Afghanistan Policy
Stephen Biddle and Max Boot discuss U.S. Afghanistan policy with Jonathan D. Tepperman. Click here to listen to the audio.
Honey, I shrunk the F-35 cost estimates - Politics - CBC News
The CBC's Terry Milewski reports on how the Conservative government made $10 billion vanish from the cost estimates of the F-35 fighter jet
How Did a Tortoise Survive 30 Years in a Box?How Did a Tortoise Survive ...
A Brazilian family recently found their long-lost pet tortoise in a box after 30 years. Find out how the reptile made it through the ordeal.
Stompology VII: Laura Glaess and Mike Faltesek on Solo Dancing
Stompology is Only Two Months Away! Plans are certainly coming together and we're really looking forward to having everyone in town for
F-35 cost responsibility lies with PM Harper, Rae says - Politics - CBC ...
Canada's prime minister can't say he didn't know about a $10-billion cost overrun for the F-35 fighter jet program, given the tight control
Loonie, TSX slump as commodities fall - Business - CBC News
The Canadian dollar fell and the Toronto stock market traded sharply lower for a second day Wednesday as prices for oil and metals retreated
Antibiotics useless for most sinus infections - Health - CBC News
Nearly all people who have sinus infections don't need antibiotics, according to new guidelines for doctors.
Skydivers told to jump as balloon plummets - World - CBC News
Authorities search for a U.S. hot air balloon pilot who ordered five skydivers to jump before his balloon plummeted and crashed during a wee