How well do you know the Constitution?
When discussing government surveillance, it is important to note the role of the Fourth amendment. The Fourth amendment says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
There have been a line of court cases that debate the constitutionality of government surveillance in terms of citizens’ right to privacy, both in the public and private spheres. In the 1967 case Katz v. United States, police officers had used a communication surveillance device to bug a phone booth that Katz was using to transmit information for illegal activities (Oyez, 35.) The question of the case asked if the Fourth amendment requires police officers and other government officials to obtain a search warrant in order to tap phones, even in public places. The Warren Court ruled that yes, the Fourth Amendment does protect citizens from being unknowingly tapped because each citizen has a reasonable expectation for privacy, in the public sphere. A statement from the court said, “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. (Capers, 2013)”
However, in cases following the Katz decision, it became clear that almost any “knowledge of a third party could defeat a claimed reasonable expectation of privacy (Capers, 2013).” A third party is our telephones companies, our Internet service providers, and even our banks. In order for us to communicate via cellphones, we have to have cellphone provider. And because we use cellphones knowing there is a (somewhat invisible) third party invading on our privacy, information obtained through said third party is actually public information, even if it is said within our own homes. There have been several cases that further clarify the use of government surveillance technology, which basically boils down to one idea: People must recognize the fact their conversations could be recorded. No, people should not have to be weary that while sitting in a dinner, a bug has been preemptively placed in their presence, but everyone should recognize the fact that the person they are communicating with could be an informant. Furthermore, cases like United States v. Jackson, year 2000, have set the precedent that a recording device can be used if it would be reasonable for a human being to witness the actions taking place. For example, as was the case with United States v. Jackson, it is reasonable for police officers to have video recording devices on telephone poles because it would be reasonable for a police officer to be standing there in the flesh. United States v. Jackson followed United Sates v. White which involved Harvey Jackson, a government informant using surveillance technology to record conversations with White in which White made self-incriminating remarks linking him to narcotic crimes (Oyez, 13). United States v. White distinguished a difference between non consensual recordings and consensual conversations, explaining that when a person enters a conversation, she/he must understand that the person they are communicating with could be a government informant. White’s situation differed from Katz’s situation the fact Katz would have had no reasonable fear of being recorded because there was no other person present, whereas White was having face-to-face conversations (Capers, 2013).
These court cases use the Fourth Amendment to make clear distinctions on what the government sees as necessary surveillance. Privacy in the public sphere should not be expected, and thus the government apparently has every right to record citizens, with or without their knowing consent in terms of crime surveillance.
Sources:
Capers, I. B. (2013, March). Crime, surveillance, and communities. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 40(3), 959+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA338892769&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=unc_main&it=r&p=LT&sw=w&asid=0ec985106d488961cff9254e4c82379e
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/13
There have been a line of court cases that debate the constitutionality of government surveillance in terms of citizens’ right to privacy, both in the public and private spheres. In the 1967 case Katz v. United States, police officers had used a communication surveillance device to bug a phone booth that Katz was using to transmit information for illegal activities (Oyez, 35.) The question of the case asked if the Fourth amendment requires police officers and other government officials to obtain a search warrant in order to tap phones, even in public places. The Warren Court ruled that yes, the Fourth Amendment does protect citizens from being unknowingly tapped because each citizen has a reasonable expectation for privacy, in the public sphere. A statement from the court said, “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. (Capers, 2013)”
However, in cases following the Katz decision, it became clear that almost any “knowledge of a third party could defeat a claimed reasonable expectation of privacy (Capers, 2013).” A third party is our telephones companies, our Internet service providers, and even our banks. In order for us to communicate via cellphones, we have to have cellphone provider. And because we use cellphones knowing there is a (somewhat invisible) third party invading on our privacy, information obtained through said third party is actually public information, even if it is said within our own homes. There have been several cases that further clarify the use of government surveillance technology, which basically boils down to one idea: People must recognize the fact their conversations could be recorded. No, people should not have to be weary that while sitting in a dinner, a bug has been preemptively placed in their presence, but everyone should recognize the fact that the person they are communicating with could be an informant. Furthermore, cases like United States v. Jackson, year 2000, have set the precedent that a recording device can be used if it would be reasonable for a human being to witness the actions taking place. For example, as was the case with United States v. Jackson, it is reasonable for police officers to have video recording devices on telephone poles because it would be reasonable for a police officer to be standing there in the flesh. United States v. Jackson followed United Sates v. White which involved Harvey Jackson, a government informant using surveillance technology to record conversations with White in which White made self-incriminating remarks linking him to narcotic crimes (Oyez, 13). United States v. White distinguished a difference between non consensual recordings and consensual conversations, explaining that when a person enters a conversation, she/he must understand that the person they are communicating with could be a government informant. White’s situation differed from Katz’s situation the fact Katz would have had no reasonable fear of being recorded because there was no other person present, whereas White was having face-to-face conversations (Capers, 2013).
These court cases use the Fourth Amendment to make clear distinctions on what the government sees as necessary surveillance. Privacy in the public sphere should not be expected, and thus the government apparently has every right to record citizens, with or without their knowing consent in terms of crime surveillance.
Sources:
Capers, I. B. (2013, March). Crime, surveillance, and communities. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 40(3), 959+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA338892769&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=unc_main&it=r&p=LT&sw=w&asid=0ec985106d488961cff9254e4c82379e
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/13
Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?
Prior to becoming a whistleblower, Edward Snowden was an employee of Dell and the CIA and also a contractor for the NSA. In 2013 Snowden copied and leaked classified information belonging to the NSA without authorization. Much of the information that was released pertained to surveillance programs belonging to the NSA as well as the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The alliance was operating in cooperation with large telecommunication companies and foreign European governments. (France, 24)
Following his employment at Dell and the CIA, NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton hired Snowden in 2013. Snowden’s release of classified information and documents occurred in May of that year after leaving his job at an NSA facility located in Hawaii. Shortly after, Snowden flew to Hong Kong and in early June released the classified NSA documents to journalists Ewen MacAskill, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras. Snowden would soon gain international attention from the articles that followed based on the documents. The disclosures appeared in The Guardian and The Washington Post, as well as The New York Times. In late June, these disclosures came to the attention of the US Department of Justice, who charged Snowden with two counts of violations against the Espionage Act of 1917, including the theft of government property. On June 23, Snowden flew to Moscow, Russia, where he was eventually granted asylum for three years in an undisclosed location within the country. (Finn, Horwitz, 2013)
The exact size of Snowden’s disclosure is not currently known. While initially an estimate from NSA Director Keith Alexander placed the numbers close to 200,000 documents, these estimates later would be approximated at 1.7 million. These released documents were not limited to the NSA, a US Defense Agency report published in June 2015 found that Snowden took nearly 900,000 more files from the Department of Defense. The leak itself to the news media was one of the largest in United States history. The contents of the disclosure were addressed by Army General Martin Dempsey in March of 2014 stating, "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden exfiltrated from our highest levels of security had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures." Snowden on the other hand also commented on the contents of the release, reassuring that the documents were examined and vetted stating, “"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest.” (Burrough, 2014)
Edward Snowden remains a controversial figure worldwide, while some people consider him a traitor; others believe he is a hero fighting for individual liberty and freedom. The exact number of documents disclosed may never be known, however it is clear that Snowden’s actions will have a tremendous impact on the future of surveillance for years to come.
Sources:
http://www.france24.com/en/20130609-former-cia-employee-source-us-intelligence-leaks-snowden-nsa
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2014/05/edward-snowden-politics-interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
Prior to becoming a whistleblower, Edward Snowden was an employee of Dell and the CIA and also a contractor for the NSA. In 2013 Snowden copied and leaked classified information belonging to the NSA without authorization. Much of the information that was released pertained to surveillance programs belonging to the NSA as well as the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance, consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The alliance was operating in cooperation with large telecommunication companies and foreign European governments. (France, 24)
Following his employment at Dell and the CIA, NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton hired Snowden in 2013. Snowden’s release of classified information and documents occurred in May of that year after leaving his job at an NSA facility located in Hawaii. Shortly after, Snowden flew to Hong Kong and in early June released the classified NSA documents to journalists Ewen MacAskill, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras. Snowden would soon gain international attention from the articles that followed based on the documents. The disclosures appeared in The Guardian and The Washington Post, as well as The New York Times. In late June, these disclosures came to the attention of the US Department of Justice, who charged Snowden with two counts of violations against the Espionage Act of 1917, including the theft of government property. On June 23, Snowden flew to Moscow, Russia, where he was eventually granted asylum for three years in an undisclosed location within the country. (Finn, Horwitz, 2013)
The exact size of Snowden’s disclosure is not currently known. While initially an estimate from NSA Director Keith Alexander placed the numbers close to 200,000 documents, these estimates later would be approximated at 1.7 million. These released documents were not limited to the NSA, a US Defense Agency report published in June 2015 found that Snowden took nearly 900,000 more files from the Department of Defense. The leak itself to the news media was one of the largest in United States history. The contents of the disclosure were addressed by Army General Martin Dempsey in March of 2014 stating, "The vast majority of the documents that Snowden exfiltrated from our highest levels of security had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures." Snowden on the other hand also commented on the contents of the release, reassuring that the documents were examined and vetted stating, “"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest.” (Burrough, 2014)
Edward Snowden remains a controversial figure worldwide, while some people consider him a traitor; others believe he is a hero fighting for individual liberty and freedom. The exact number of documents disclosed may never be known, however it is clear that Snowden’s actions will have a tremendous impact on the future of surveillance for years to come.
Sources:
http://www.france24.com/en/20130609-former-cia-employee-source-us-intelligence-leaks-snowden-nsa
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2014/05/edward-snowden-politics-interview
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html