During the spring of 2013, Edward Snowden introduced himself to the world. Mr. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton, was the famed, or infamous, depending on your perspective, "whistle-blower" -- who released thousands of mass surveillance documents. He provided the public with intimate information about the United States' spy programs. Immediately, there was a firestorm of opinion, both of condemnation and praise.
I withheld judgment up until now. As I reflect, I cannot for certain say why. Indeed, as I looked for public or private statements about the matter, I came up empty handed.
It's not that I did not have an opinion. I did. But, it was not a fully developed opinion. How could it be? A complete judgment, or opinion, should be based on a complete set of facts. Moreover, the issue in debate is a complex question into how we balance the need for security with the individual right to privacy. There are entire volumes of books committed to this question.
That all being said, I have learned a great deal from the interview with Brian Williams on May 28, 2014. In my opinion, the interview provided a great deal of new information, including: Mr. Snowden's fear of a criminal trial -- because of evidentiary exclusion of evidence on the rationale that it could threaten "national security", how Mr. Snowden intended to seek asylum in South America, but ended up in Russia, and how he holds genuine convictions about the need for public participation in relation to the question of whether mass surveillance programs are needed.
Since the initial leaks, and number of subsequent interviews, including with Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who published the documents, there has been a healthy public discussion on privacy and security. The nuanced topic has made me realize that people may hold strong positions on the subject but be unable to explain a sound rationale for their position. I suspect that I did not formulate a belief for that very reason: I wanted to hear more from Mr. Snowden himself before I cast my judgment on him.
Before I state my opinion about Mr. Snowden, let me explain what should be done policy wise in regards to the ultimate balance question. Mass surveillance should be tailored, limited, and regulated. From what I have read of late, steps are being taken to do just that, even with our rancorous Congressional polarization, which is surprising. But, our Fourth Amendment rights need to be protected vigorously. A government agent, from the NSA, CIA, or anywhere, should have to meet the standard of probable cause. We should not water down the constitution for the sake of preventing a new September 11, 2001. By not doing so, we hurt our country and our reputation abroad.
The surveillance programs should be operated in such a way that our private communications, data, and lives are protected. There should be an honest debate in how this can be done effectively, including whether it should be stored first, and then accessed later by a warrant, or whether data should not be collected at all until there is probable cause. Individuals with more technological and intelligence gathering backgrounds should lead this debate. Surely, independent attorneys should be at the forefront of protecting personal privacy -- and the President has indicated that such an agency will be created.
Finally, the surveillance programs should be disclosed to the public in an honest fashion. The public does not need to know the classified information, but it is entitled to how the programs function, and how the public relates to those programs -- knowledge is power.
Security is essential to a strong nation. Countries cannot govern if its citizens do not believe that they are safe. I understand this. However, we need to evaluate how much should be sacrificed, and how much needs to be sacrificed for security. To date, the Snowden criticizers have not satisfied me with justification for the unlimited nature of the mass surveillance. How many lives were saved because of the constitutional rights of some were trampled on? We do not know. This should be addressed without hesitation: prove that these procedures are needed to protect against violent attacks.
Mr. Snowden gave us the information to base our opinions; that much is not in dispute. What should be done with him, given that he broke federal law? I think that he should be afforded the right of any other citizen: innocent until proven guilty. He should eventually come home and have a public trial, but that may be impossible with our current evidentiary laws on Espionage. This can be addressed by Congress. Perhaps reform can be made. Whistle-blower laws can be expanded.
In conclusion, there are still unanswered questions even after a whole year has passed. That may be a good thing. For once, Americans may be able to utilize patience in a world of immediate satisfaction. For me, I'm content in waiting to see what happens. And the reality is that the government may already know that.
