- by Brooke Arthur
Growing up as an American citizen, we are taught to obey and trust the government because they are protecting our nation and our freedom. So who do we trust when top-secret information is leaked and the general public is not pleased with their protection methods? The article I chose discusses how Edward Snowden used “web crawler” software to download highly secure information from the National Security Agency and reveal it to the public. The classified information shared the government’s use of surveillance, phone and internet monitoring, and other privacy matters, all of which led to the question: Does the government have a legitimate power that allows them to invade people’s personal lives? In class, Professor Musheno defined legitimacy as a conscious willing acceptance of authority often as part of a judgment of a source treating you fairly. Is the government treating us fairly by invading our privacy? This is a difficult question to answer, but my argument is that with the speedy technological advancements today, legitimacy is fleeting and soon no one will be able to be trusted.
Surveillance is a complicated technology because in one sense it can do a lot of good and help reduce and stop crime, yet it is also tremendously invasive. The definition Professor Musheno provided says surveillance is a systematic, intrusive watching and monitoring from a position of power and with the intent of channeling and governing human thought, movement, and behavior. Even though it can be a useful approach in reducing crime or protecting our nation, it also takes away our rights, such as the right to privacy. It also gives the government an excuse to snoop through our private lives without any warning. How is this a source of legitimacy because it does not seem like the government is treating us fairly by taking away certain rights. Snowden’s hacking released this information about the government’s use of mass surveillance to the public, which caused the public to rethink the government’s role. With the government’s continued use of intrusive technology, our nation will be in trouble and mistrust will ensue.
Snowden figured out a way to bypass the government in a way that is shocking. He accomplished his hacking through a simple technology that essentially anyone would have access to, yet the NSA did not catch it. The article summarizes the situation perfectly, “While the organization built enormously high electronic barriers to keep out foreign invaders, it had rudimentary protections against insiders” (Sanger and Schmitt). Snowden was an insider, someone the public trusted to keep information safe and secure, yet, Snowden’s actions prove otherwise. His scheme has left America in a downward spiral of distrust. Technology is advancing so quickly that people are able to breech government security and use the information in whatever way they choose. The current mistrust and illegitimacy in America has led to anxiety that cannot be calmed. People have lost control of their privacy and their sense of safety. Events like this have the potential to lead to anarchy like we saw in the film, Law and Disorder in Johannesburg. In that video, we saw vigilante justice because there was no sense of legitimacy, which is a key component in having an effective and efficiently run nation. Similarly, Snowden’s actions make us question what makes certain power positions legitimate and who the public should trust with their security.
Article Cited: Snowden Used Low-Cost Tool to Best N.S.A.
Your point about the right to privacy really interested me. The right to privacy is not a constitutional right like the right to free speech or the right to freedom of religion. Rather it is an expectation of how involved people think the government should be in their private lives. This brings up the fact that legitimacy is not always tied directly to laws. Although the NSA claims its surveillance does not break any laws, there was huge public outcry against the government after Snowden. The government violated the more implicit beliefs about what the government should do. Should the government enact laws that better reflect the public's expectations and therefore retain legitimacy by following them? Or has it lost the public's goodwill completely?
ReplyDeleteChristine Prior
Your article has made me reflect on my feelings about the government and made me even question their legitimacy to do the things that they do. Is it really for our safety and own good? Or are they self interested individuals who surveil everyone in order to make sure that no one steps out of line and follow their command. The government has made some reasons as to why they do some of the things they do in our civil society such as budget cuts on education, investing in mass incarceration, deportation, etc. But do they have a reason of why they surveil everyone. It makes it seem as if we citizens ARE the criminals or suspects and therefore should be watched. This has definitely influenced, like you mentioned: our anxious state of mind, making many citizens skeptical and unsure, uncomfortable being their own person without the fear of being questioned and judged.
ReplyDeleteSureyma Gonzalez
Your article raises serious concerns about information the government is collecting and how it is being maintained and stored, but your point on legitimacy is lost to me. You defined legitimacy as a, "conscious willing acceptance of authority often as part of a judgment of a source treating you fairly." While the government has clearly mishandled information throughout history it has never lost legitimacy and probably will not due to the fact that there are no better alternatives. Until Americans wise up and elect better representation or total anarchy due to a coup d'etat is preferable to the current regime, government legitimacy will be a given in America.
ReplyDeleteAlejandro Castellano
In a way, I understand the government's rationale for collecting information from us and storing it, but what makes me anxious is that any person could use a software that is available to obtain private information from the NSA. For me the government is losing its legitimacy if this "highly secured information" could be stolen. The question is not if the government is treating us fairly by invading our privacy, we have to accept that we live in a world where we are being constantly monitored, in my opinion. What we have to ask ourselves is whether if the government is treating us fairly, if this information could be obtained by the wrong hands.
ReplyDelete- Kevin Ramirez
I think that the NSA's conduct represents an old mode of legitimacy for the government. In the years following 9/11, Americans were a little more complacent and willing to make sacrifices to the end of stopping another terrorist attack. The government believed drastic policies, like those employed by the NSA or written in the Patriot Act, were the way to get things done. Now that its been over 10 years, perhaps it is time to reevaluate where we want to balance our ultimate safety and privacy. Snowden's release confirmed many people's suspicions of spying and sped up a conversation that was a long time coming.
ReplyDeleteDerek Chin