Analysis of the government's PRISM data collection program continues in newspapers across the country today. Over at
The Washington Post,
Dana Milbank focuses on the director of national intelligence:
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper at a Senate hearing in March, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
“No, sir,” Clapper testified.
“It does not?” Wyden pressed.
“Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”
We now know that Clapper was not telling the truth. The National Security Agency is quite wittingly collecting phone records of millions of Americans, and much more
Meanwhile,
Eugene Robinson points out that the debate on the government's data surveillance is long overdue:
The important thing right now isn’t whether Edward Snowden should be labeled a hero or villain. First, let’s have the debate he sparked over surveillance and privacy. Then we can decide how history should remember him. [...] we have oversight of intelligence operations in this country, too. The problem is that the system works more or less like a rubber stamp.
More analysis below the fold.
The Washington Post itself points out that all indications are that PRISM was implemented with government oversight, which in and of itself may be a problem and a red flag for a new debate on privacy in this country, as Robinson mentioned above:
Though Mr. Snowden’s documents did not detail minimization procedures, there is no indication that the court or principal members of Congress were cut out of the loop as the government applied this authority. Nor is there any evidence that the authorities were abused or that the privacy of any American was illegally or improperly invaded. If there is a scandal here, it is that a government contractor of Mr. Snowden’s stature had access to highly classified material.
Just as it is important not to exaggerate the national security risks of transparency, it is also important not to give into the anti-government paranoia of grandstanding politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who on Sunday invoked the tyranny of King George III to criticize programs that are the result of a checked, deliberative process across three branches of government. Part of what makes this different is that if enough Americans expect more privacy after the debate Mr. Snowden incited, their representatives in Washington can act on their behalf.
The New York Times takes a stronger stand and demands answers:
If the president wants to have a meaningful discussion, he can order his intelligence directors to explain to the public precisely how the National Security Agency’s widespread collection of domestic telephone data works. Since there’s not much point in camouflaging the program anymore, it’s time for the public to get answers to some basic questions. [...] For years, members of Congress ignored evidence that domestic intelligence-gathering had grown beyond their control, and, even now, few seem disturbed to learn that every detail about the public’s calling and texting habits now reside in a N.S.A. database. [...]
Senator Feinstein has held several closed-door briefings for lawmakers. If she wants to hold hearings that are useful to the public, she should focus on the laws that fostered the growth of domestic spying, and the testimony should not consist of blithe assurances that the government can be trusted. The public needs explanations of how an overreaching intelligence community pushed that trust to the brink.
Bloomberg's editors:
Snowden’s case highlights the difficulty, if not impossibility, of debating U.S. national security policy in this age of ubiquitous technology: How do you build informed public consent for surveillance when the only people who know about those programs can’t talk about them? And without the public’s consent, how can those programs be legitimate in a democratic society?
Those questions aren’t new, but Snowden’s revelations give them new importance. Those who think what he did was wrong need to do more than just criticize his actions. The goal should be to make it easier for others like him to follow their consciences without breaking the law. And we need to have the public debate that Snowden concluded was lacking -- a point that can’t reasonably be contested, even by his angriest detractors.
USA Today:
Snowden says he's prepared for prosecution and, in fact, expects it. But the price of standing for principle can be tortuously high. Sometimes, it comes without any reward other than the satisfaction that comes from doing the right thing.
Snowden proclaims that's enough for him, and if that proves true, his actions might ultimately be judged heroic. But he faces many trials — literal and figurative — between now and then.
Jack Shafer at
Reuters:
Lest I sound like a Fourth Amendment hysteric, I understand there’s nothing automatically sacrosanct about any of the digital trails we leave behind. Lawful subpoenas can liberate all sorts records about you, electronic or otherwise.
What’s breathtaking about these two government surveillance programs that the Guardian and the Washington Post have revealed is that they’re vast collections of data about hundreds of millions of people suspected of no wrongdoing and not part of any civil action. Defending the phone-record cull, National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper explained this week that smaller sets of information aren’t very useful in screening for and identifying “terrorism-related communications,” hence all must collected.