new Guardian editorial: oversight lags technology as spying spreads to G20 summits [View all]

[nashville_brook]

Civil liberties: surveillance and the state
In unmasking himself as the leaker of the files showing the uses and abuses of western intelligence, Edward Snowden called for a wider public debate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/16/civil-liberties-surveillance-state-editorial?CMP=twt_gu

(snip)

...Snowden's case is that almost no one – not ordinary citizens, not the press, not the courts, not even congress – is in a position to discuss the reasonable balance between security, privacy and openness because they are denied the full and true facts. From Snowden's vantage point – reading a great deal of source material – he believes the US National Security Agency "routinely" lies to congress. He alleges the US agencies "hack everyone everywhere … we are in almost every country in the world. We are not at war with these countries … You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying." He wants his fellow citizens to be aware of the degree to which data about their phone calls, social network activity and email traffic is being hoovered up and stored – and, in many cases, accessed.

Is he right? And how can his claims be meaningfully tested? Congress – working only with what the Guardian and Washington Post have put into the public domain – is clearly rousing itself to find answers, but has limited material with which to challenge a director of national intelligence who says he is content to give elected politicians the "least untruthful" answers. There is, on the part of some members of Congress and parliament, a perhaps understandable thirst to pursue Snowden and to throw him in jail. There has, to date, been a more limited appetite to find out what he knows – and why he says it is so disturbing.

(snip)

But, as our story today reveals, prevention of terror is not the only justification for state-authorised snooping. Documents leaked by Snowden show that foreign politicians and officials taking part in the G20 summit in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted by GCHQ, with some involvement from the NSA. The aim – which appears to have been largely successful – was to improve the UK's negotiating positions on the economic matters under discussion.

(snip)

The law cannot keep pace with technology. Talented engineers will constantly be working to find new ways to scoop up massive amounts of information which people may previously have regarded as private. The coming debate needs to be about how, and whether, the legal framework relates to technology; how authority is granted; who has access to material; and how scrutiny can be meaningful. It will also want to ask about the relationship between the state, commercial technology giants and telecom companies – and the outsourcing of highly sensitive intelligence to corporations. There is much to discuss.