In our everyday lives, there is not much that usually happens for us to be targets of CIA, NSA, FBI, or any other type of security program. However, these government agencies work around the clock to protect us from all sorts of threats to the safety of those who live in the United States and abroad. Many cases have shown that these agencies are crucial to keeping those here safe. The tools used by the government have been proven time and time again to be legal and effective. The misconceptions surrounding our government programs need to be addressed, as they are causing many to not trust programs that are beneficial and protecting the country. The use of government surveillance technology is a necessary tool that, although may become invasive if let free, is still something that protects United States citizens more than it infringes upon their 4th amendment rights and needs to be enforced to the full degree of the law. 

Many people do not have a clear understanding of the way that our government agencies today work. Due to the secrecy of the way that many policies in this country are carried out, there is a broad misunderstanding as to what programs run by our government are actually targeting. Three of the largest and most well-known agencies that operate in the United States today are the CIA, NSA, and FBI. To provide a basic overview of each, the CIA focuses on intelligence gathering outside of our country, the NSA focuses on protecting government files and sensitive information, and the FBI is comparable to a police force with jurisdiction over the whole country. This is different than what most would expect. Recently, there was a large leak of sensitive CIA documents that caused a large outrage in the media. However, looking into the situation more reveals there is not much in these leaks that wouldn’t be expected. For the NSA, there is a lot of misunderstanding due to its secretive nature. The FBI operates much like any other police agency, meaning they need warrants for things that worry the everyday person such as wiretaps or going through someone’s files or computer. The way they operate is said well in an article by Angelia Levy, who states “The duties break down roughly as follows: The CIA conducts foreign covert operations, counterintelligence operations, and collects and analyzes foreign intelligence for the president and his staff to aid in national security decisions. NSA handles the making and breaking of codes, and intercepts communications from abroad. Last but not least, the FBI conducts domestic counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations in addition to its role as the lead law enforcement agency in the country.” Some of the keys to this quote include the fact that the CIA conducts foreign operations, so most citizens of this country don’t even fall under CIA jurisdiction. People view the CIA and NSA with fear because they are unknown. However, the FBI, which actually conducts domestic investigations, are not held in the same light as these other agencies because they are more well-known and publicized. 

In his essay “Applying the Economic, Homeland and National Security Analysis Framework”, Bijan Karimi shows many ways that the national security issues are much more complex than people would normally think. Many factors go into the complex system that makes up our entire security force, including protecting our citizens, economic status, and allies. Karimi goes into detail as to how complex our government security is, and from a starting point of three factors ends up expanding to many different scenarios and factors. Some of his main points include a section on how Economic Security leads to National Insecurity. Karimi states that “There is a balance needed between short-term benefit and the long-term prosperity; we may need to forego benefit now for future returns. Thus, the economic foundation needed to project global strength is not solid, weakening national security.” This applies directly to our current political climate. Since President Trump’s election and later inauguration, there has been a large discussion in the media and news outlets about the impacts of globalization and the return of populism to many western countries. There is something to be said for the way globalization has been beneficial to our global economy and helped many people. However, there are also risks involved with assimilating vastly different cultures together so rapidly. By making sure that our country is most secure first, this leaves the most room for future improvement of the global economy. This is an approach that has been broadly criticized here in the United States, however populism is a movement that is gaining support across the world. The United Kingdom recently voted to leave the European Union, France has a populist as one of its major Presidential candidates, and the Netherlands recently had a presidential candidate very similar to this. 

Many issues that people raise with our government surveillance systems are issues that there is not an easy fix to. There is not a cut and dry way to solve some of the problems that we are facing, and many people think that there are clear solutions. There is much more grey area than people realize. All would agree that it is important to have a secure country that is safe from threats both at home and abroad. However, when it comes to enforcing this rule is when many no longer are all for it. In David Pozen’s essay “Privacy – Policy Tradeoffs”, it is explained that in many ways it is impossible to have the best of both worlds when it comes to privacy and security. To explain this, he uses an example originating from the European Union. “When EU citizens began exercising their right to be forgotten last year and flooded Google with “delete me” requests, the deleted links quickly re- appeared—together with the relevant search terms—on a web site devoted to documenting Internet censorship. These citizens’ bid for online privacy thus seems to have triggered the Streisand effect, ‘whereby an attempt to suppress a disclosed item of information only draws more attention to it.’” This illustrates the way that, in actuality, there is not a clear way to have privacy online in today’s world. If there is someone who tries to exercise rights to privacy, it only draws more attention to themselves. This may be seen as a drawback of today’s technological society, however to go through the trouble to try and become anonymous on the internet is something that is not realistic or necessary. There are so many users of the internet and technology today that only the most egregious acts will alert any federal authorities, which the average American does not have to worry about. The overall point of Pozen’s essay is that there is not an easy solution to be had, and he freely admits as such. There may not be a fix that satisfies all parties involved, so the overall goal should be to find something that makes the best of the situation. To this point, what makes the most sense in today’s highly technological and volatile environment is to have adequate surveillance programs to ensure the safety of all our citizens at home and abroad. 

Recently, the CIA released new guidelines on the regulations behind keeping data on United States citizens. This was the first release of its kind, and predated the recent WikiLeaks document leak. This information was voluntarily released, and gives new insight into the ways that the CIA operates. According to CIA general counsel Caroline Krass, the regulations were written “in a manner that protects the privacy and civil rights” of U.S. citizens. When these regulations were released to the public, Donald Trump was only two days into his presidency, and there was, and still is, much uncertainty as to how the President will impact regulations such as these. An article on Time magazine notes that, “The public has become increasingly frustrated with the secrecy and spread of government surveillance programs since the 2013 exposure by Edward Snowden that the National Security Agency was collecting data on millions of American citizens.” In an attempt to get rid of some of the secrecy here, the CIA showed the ways that they go about some of their data collecting. Some of the highlights of the release include the fact that the CIA must destroy any data that has not been evaluated after 5 years, provided it is not sensitive.

About a month ago, there was a large release from WikiLeaks of unauthorized documents to the public, dubbed “Vault 7”. Many viewed this as a major indictment of CIA policies and practices, but upon closer inspection there does not seem to be much here that is unexpected or out of the ordinary. Conclusions were drawn from this leak that seem to be an overreaction and an increase in misunderstanding of CIA operations. One of the largest sources of outrage comes from the realization that the CIA can use televisions to spy on people in their homes, and use a “fake off” mode to turn someone’s television into a bug. Per a WikiLeaks press release, “The attack against Samsung smart TVs was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom’s MI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a ‘Fake Off’ mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In ‘Fake Off’ mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.” At first glance, this seems like a drastic overreach of government power, a way to spy on unsuspecting civilians. However, the way that this bug is placed should change perception. A CIA operative needs to have physical access to someone’s personal television in order to place this bug. When seeing this, it seems unnecessary to think that the CIA is somehow bugging everyone’s television and sending operatives to everyone who has a Samsung Smart TV. In order to have the CIA come and bug your TV, it would be reasonable to say that this person did something to deserve such a treatment, or at least was suspected of something highly illegal. It seems a better option to have the capabilities to do something like this if needed than to not be able to have them at all. If there was a chance that this technology would help keep our country safe, then it is necessary to be able to use it should the time arise when it was needed. It is also worth noting that this was a joint project between the CIA and MI5, an agency in the United Kingdom. Many people are under the impression that this current technological problem only exists in the United States. All over the world, governments are developing tools to keep its citizens and constituents under watch and protected. 

The main problem that many people have with forms of government surveillance is that they perceive it to be illegal, and an intrusion on our 4th amendment rights. If this were the case, then it would be understandable to have reservations about such programs. However, what many people do not know is that all of the programs run by the government have been tested in our courts time and time again, and almost all judges come to the same conclusion: these programs are legal under our constitution. The Harvard Law Review gives an in-depth example in its review of ACLU vs. NSA, a lawsuit against a Bush-era program called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The TSP was introduced by President Bush and the NSA after the September 11th attacks, and its existence was leaked to the public in 2005. In this lawsuit, it was ruled that “The Sixth Circuit accordingly held that a group of plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the TSP because they could not show that they personally were injured by it. The judges relied on a strict construction of standing for Fourth Amendment injuries, one developed in cases where plaintiffs sought to challenge individual searches of other people.” The ruling states that the people questioning the legality of the TSP were not affected by it, and therefore no rights were violated. When looking at the conditions in which the TSP may be invoked, it is easy to see why. The Harvard Law Review states: “In the wake of the September 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the TSP, a classified program that permitted warrantless domestic eavesdropping when two conditions were met: first, one party to the intercepted communication had to be located overseas, and second, the National Security Agency (NSA) had to have a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe that one party was connected to al Qaeda or a related organization.” Anyone who is in the United States does not need to worry about this program. The NSA cannot legally use this program as a reason to monitor or wiretap you. Someone who is up in arms over this program for a perceived “government overreach” obviously does not know how it works, as they almost certainly cannot be affected by it. One of the main reasons why is this program can only be applied overseas. This distinction is very important, and is something that many people do not realize. Not only is the TSP only be able to be used in overseas situations, but something many do not know is that the CIA cannot operate within the United States without the joint operation of another agency. The CIA does not know much about American Citizens, because they are not authorized to operate in this jurisdiction. 

The use of government surveillance is highly misunderstood, but overall the use has more positives than negatives. We are in an age in which there are constantly threats to national security through all sorts of different possibilities. The need to constantly be prepared is what drives our security forces, and there are new threats evolving and emerging every day. Detractors from our programs say that they are unconstitutional and a violation of our rights, however upon closer inspection both claims are seen to be incorrect. Many legal challenges have been made against all sorts of our security programs, however they have actually proven the legality of many government programs. The claim of “government overreach” does not hold water when all the information is looked at. The misunderstanding of the way our government operates contributes to this greatly, as many people do not know the basic functions of most branches of national security. If people began to understand what goes on inside these places, there would be much more trust of both the government and its ability to protect us. Many of the things people use to criticize the surveillance programs, such as its legality and WikiLeaks news, actually point to a government using its power to protect its citizens from outside threats. Citizens in this country are not subject to almost all the resources we use to find and deal with threats. It is time we see that there is nothing to do in this situation but help the government to keep us safe, otherwise it may become something that we regret. 

