Down To Business: Beware The Conventional Wisdom About NSA 'Surveillance'
Many questions about the government program still must be answered, but let's start basing our viewpoints on the facts as we know them.
The National Security Agency is reportedly compiling data on millions of phone calls in search of patterns that would lead the agency to terrorist activity. In response to a USA Today story on this program, which the Bush administration has characterized as "narrowly designed," political opportunists, class-action ambulance chasers, privacy alarmists, and the media herd are rushing to this judgment: The feds--and the phone companies allegedly cooperating with them--are trampling our civil liberties.
Think what you will about this kind of government activity, but at least base your viewpoint on the facts as we know them rather than on the following nuggets of conventional wisdom:
The NSA is "monitoring" your phone calls and otherwise conducting illegal "surveillance." The administration already has acknowledged approving legal surveillance of communications into and out of the country, but it denies listening in to domestic calls. Whether or not you buy that claim, the activity reported in the recent USA Today story has nothing to do with eavesdropping. The real issue is whether the feds are mining the data contained in customer calling records--adapting techniques used by thousands of companies for their own fiscal ends. But this important distinction is apparently lost on certain lawyers and journalists.
Even if the government were just mining the data in private calling records, that activity alone violates the Fourth Amendment right toprivacy. In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement agencies don't need a warrant to collect such data. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the petitioner in that case, whose calling records were used to convict him of robbery, "in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy" when he made those calls. The Electronic Frontier Foundation apparently disagrees with the applicability of that ruling to the masses, as it filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T in February claiming the carrier illegally gave the NSA access to vast amounts of communications data.
The big carriers rolled over for the feds. Here, there's still much to be learned. After conducting an internal review, BellSouth said last week that it hasn't provided "bulk customer calling records" to the NSA. Verizon said last week that the agency never asked for, nor did Verizon provide, customer records from its core wireline, wireless, and directory publishing businesses, though it's not clear from its statement whether that includes the recently acquired MCI long-distance business. AT&T said last week that it hasn't given up customer records "without legal authorization," but it doesn't deny involvement with the NSA. Qwest Communications says it has refused to fork over any records to the government without warrants or subpoenas.
Most Americans oppose the NSA data-mining program. The media are quick to cite a USA Today poll that found that 51% of respondents disapprove of the program. But the key USA Today question, which refers to a database of "billions" of phone numbers dialed by Americans, otherwise assumes that respondents are up to speed on the issue. In response to a more detailed ABC News poll question, which explicitly states that the government program doesn't entail eavesdropping, 63% say the program is an acceptable way to fight terrorism. Yet in a Newsweek poll that's similarly explicit, 53% of respondents say they disapprove of the program.
Clearly, many questions still must be answered, and it's the role of media, interest groups, and the voting public to keep the government in line. But let's at least try to make it an honest, unemotional, nonpolitical debate. The public has long viewed information technology as Big Brother incarnate, whether it's wiretaps, RFID tags, Web site monitoring software, or fraud-detection systems we fear are tracking our every move. But if we can't stomach letting our security agencies use technology--albeit responsibly--to isolate suspicious activity, then we're pretty much giving the bad guys the upper hand.
IT's Reputation: What the Data SaysInformationWeek's IT Perception Survey seeks to quantify how IT thinks it's doing versus how the business really views IT's performance in delivering services - and, more important, powering innovation. Our results suggest IT leaders should worry less about whether they're getting enough resources and more about the relationships they have with business unit peers.
What The Business Really Thinks Of IT: 3 Hard TruthsThey say perception is reality. If so, many in-house IT departments have reason to worry. InformationWeek's IT Perception Survey seeks to quantify how IT thinks it's doing versus how the business views IT's performance in delivering services - and, more important, powering innovation. The news isn't great.
InformationWeek Must Reads Oct. 21, 2014InformationWeek's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of digital strategy. Learn why you should learn to embrace DevOps, how to avoid roadblocks for digital projects, what the five steps to API management are, and more.