In electronic surveillance we trust

The last two weeks have seen a public uproar over the “discovery” of American spying on close allies and friends. Chief among the targets was Angela Merkel, the longtime Chancellor of Germany, whose friendly demeanor has earned her the nickname “mum.” The audacity of American spooks in choosing to tap the line of motherly Merkel has angered wide segments of the population abroad and at home. American eavesdropping is being blamed for damaging progress on a transatlantic trade deal and civil liberties at home. Yet much of this foreign criticism is disingenuous as our allies also engage in espionage operations targeting the United States. Despite these mounting issues, I find myself increasingly ambivalent over the domestic and foreign workings of our intelligence apparatus, and this bothers me.

The National Security Administration works under the purview of the President and should be held responsible for its actions, but is spying on allies that horrendous? And even if it is, is it that surprising that we’re doing it? The United States has a long history of spying on those with which it’s friends, not just Germany. The NSA came under attack in October for similar revelations regarding France, even though we’ve been eavesdropping on them since World War II. To compound the hypocrisy, France is, according to Foreign Policy columnist Adam Rawnsley, notorious for “stealing American defense technology, bugging American business executives and generally annoying U.S. counterintelligence officials.” Everyone spies on everyone. It’s a facet of international life in a chaotic world, but somehow every NSA leak is met with indignation on behalf of the countries involved.

This is a fact that should only surprise the most naïve of international observers. The nature of telecommunications and the advent of the internet have made it even easier to spy without risking human assets, which explains the “why not” attitude the NSA has in tapping everyone’s phone lines. The logic, according to one New York Times report, is that if we’re capable, why not go ahead and see what they’re saying? I have no doubt that our friends in Europe attempt similar operations and are only limited by their resources. Germany and France have vastly different interests than the United States, and surely they seek to advance them in whatever way possible.

This rationalization of American behavior, however, leaves a sour taste in my mouth. It still feels wrong, although not unsurprising, to spy on the heads of foreign states with which we are nominally allied. We live in a time in which our intelligence agencies have been given vast powers to protect us from foreign threats. Terrorism and the specter of domestic attacks loom large in the shadow of 9/11. We have grown up in a world of Guantanamo Bays and Patriot Acts. The seemingly unlimited power of the NSA to collect data shows that American concern for due process has taken a hit in the 21st century. Foreign electronic surveillance has been sold to us as a crucial component of our internal security. We will likely never know how many attacks have been foiled by the efforts of the NSA, which makes arguing against their increasing power hard to do. Still it seems unlikely that bugging Merkel’s phone line was necessary to protect this country.

My ambivalence stems from this quandary. We are undoubtedly safer because of the efforts of our national security apparatus, but is it worth the price we pay at home and abroad? It might be easier to answer the question about spying on foreign heads of states because they aren’t American citizens, but increasingly it seems like some of the rules have been bent a little closer to home.

The idea of the NSA collecting trends in call data doesn’t bother me. What upsets me is hearing about those same employees using their power to spy on their spouses and love interests. Is this the price we have to pay for our security? I don’t know, and I feel like these issues are too important for ambivalence. Our civil liberties should be inviolable, yet we live in an age where the means to violate them are becoming increasingly less difficult. Hopefully the coming months will produce a sort of national consensus on the appropriateness of electronic eavesdropping. As a country we have to decide what level of intrusion we are willing to accept. This decision, however, should not be made by bureaucrats without elected oversight but considered in the full view of the citizens of this country. Our safety isn’t worth the precedent set by such delegation.

Colin Scott is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Wednesday.