As technology encroaches on every aspect of Americans’ daily lives, it appears that people are becoming more and more comfortable surrendering some of their freedoms and their privacy. The internet is just one area where Americans are uploading their personal information with fervor, not giving much thought about who sees it, or better yet, who is collecting data.
But not many realize that it isn’t just about surfing the internet; intelligence collection across all mediums including text messages, emails, and phone conversations might all be subject to someone’s eyes other than their own and the person they are corresponding with.
The new rash of surveillance discovery in cases like Edward Snowden’s “whistle-blowing” incident, Trump’s tapes of his conversations with Billy Bush, and now the existence of the Michael Flynn tapes surfacing has not just governmental agencies, but also the average citizen, wondering when Big Brother is watching. There is a growing debate in Congress about how well the government is protecting the privacy of American citizens, or if they are overreaching their boundaries by listening in on things that they don’t have a legal right to.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency were created to protect the American homeland. Over time, they have been allowed to single out people who they suspect of trying to do harm to the civilian public.
But as time has progressed, that data might be being collected in illegal ways and for purposes other than the original intention. When Edward Snowden called out Obama’s Administration for spying on people and then fled the country, there was much debate about whether he was a hero or a traitor, but not much was discussed about whether he was right or wrong or even telling the truth.
If the personal monitoring surveillance that the government is collecting on the American public is as far-reaching as whistleblowers like Snowden has suggested, then it isn’t for purposes of protection; it is being used for things that are intrusive and probably downright illegal. Adding fuel to the surveillance fire is the new controversy revolving around Michael Flynn and the allegations that he didn’t report money taken from Russian companies and that he was fraternizing with the Russian Ambassador to aid in Trump’s 2016 election win.
The biggest controversy surrounds Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which gives the Attorney General and the NSA director the ability to listen in on personal conversations of non-US citizens without the need for a warrant.
The problem is that when they are doing so, the agency puts out a very wide net to catch a small fish and what eventually gets caught is communication that’s not always from non- citizens. The electronic data that is being collected includes US citizens’ phone calls and NSA snooping that the NSA terms “incidental collection.” It’s a euphemism for doing something illegal; there are no laws on the books that allow the government to reach as far as they do, or to spy on the American public the way that they do.
But no one seems all that concerned. Flynn’s actions were recorded because he was talking to a foreign citizen, which means that they were collected under the “incidental collection” of Russian espionage. Many experts are now asking whether it was a legal collection of surveillance and admissible in court or not.
The NSA is allowed to keep the data that they incidentally collect, but they are supposed to strip the identification of any US person that is involved. However, many intelligence officials are allowed to find out the identification if they see probable cause to do so.
Unmasking Flynn and the legalities of the situation are only further complicated by the leak of his actions to the media that came from within. It isn’t a question of whether his actions were illegal, as much as the question of legality of spying on people without using legal means and then leaking the facts to the media.
Although he’s a big player on a national stage, the Flynn incident is just an example of how Americans are vulnerable to being spied on by the government without awareness or recourse. The argument that you have to give up some of your privacy for the greater good is one that might need to be revisited, especially in the new age of technology.
