PRISM: Civil Liberties vs. National Security

PRISM: Civil Liberties vs. National Security

Freedoms, liberties, and rights are often treated as the same thing. Every individual exercises their rights while living in the United States granted by the US Constitution, specifically, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights. Civil liberties and rights allow people in the US to practice their faith and be treated fairly and equally regardless of their background, orientations, and beliefs. The government promises not to abridge any of these freedoms or rights by any means without due process.

National Security refers to the federal government’s duty to provide security and defense to the nation’s citizens, infrastructures, industries, economy, and other beneficial interests. Adversaries have evolved to use complex communication techniques and technologies that can evade any form of interception by the authorities. These developments worry leaders as they are burdened with the need to protect and serve the people of the United States.

These security concerns led to the development of the PRISM program by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the FBI. The program collected private electronic data (metadata and content) from IT Giants like Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc. Although not a lot of information is known about how the PRISM program works, the main idea is that the NSA is granted permission by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to collect data on US residents.

With the exposure of this PRISM program, there has been a huge growing concern over the balance between the common defense of the American people and the protection of civil liberties. Some critics believe that the government is engaging in aggressive surveillance; they are (1) compromising the principles that define the view of liberal democracy. The PRISM program is said to be abridging the civil liberties of US citizens. Another conflict is the issue of (2) privacy centered on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. Critics say this Act was created in an era with limited means of communication and, therefore outdated. They also believe that some of these Acts that allow for public surveillance should be reviewed and reassessed the extent to which the government and its agencies (3) collect and handle intelligence information for criminal prosecution. The (4) dilution of First Amendment rights resulted from the increased governmental collection of intelligence information due to national security concerns. And the question of whether (5) the rule of law and Separation of Powers truly exists between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches as intended by the Founding Fathers. It is hard to draw the line between public privacy and security hence the dilemma.

Having the government make an acceptable definition of national security and Civil liberties is impossible, and the dilemma constitutes a significant obstacle, depending on the threat. The term National Security for the government has unlimited scope and grounds for projects like the PRISM program. To ensure that the government's counterterrorism projects do not infringe, or only minimally infringe, on individual privacy, the federal agencies must create measures that follow due process rights for citizens and non-citizens alike. The government could develop an understanding of the target characteristics with accurate data to limit the unwarranted attention and violation of innocent individuals’ privacy. The government should provide substantial privacy protection as required by the Constitution by developing relevant technical and procedural mechanisms that include restrictions on data collection and use and encryption of all data transports to prevent compromise or loss of data. Ensuring data quality can help protect privacy. The Legislative branch can help by making laws and regulations that address the federal agencies' violations and protecting individual privacy. The program should only target individuals who fit a security threat's behavioral characteristics.

The PRISM program exemplifies how federal agencies coerced IT giants into complying with their demands, leveraging their significant influence. The NSA and FBI viewed these organizations as crucial players in both safeguarding and imperiling citizens. While they acknowledged the importance of these companies in preventing threats, they also recognized that innocent individuals often get caught in the crossfire. To uphold customer privacy, organizations can implement robust measures: establishing transparent privacy policies, training employees in best practices, limiting data collection and retention, providing customers with clear communication and choices, investing in robust security measures, and employing end-to-end encryption. For instance, WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption ensures that even the company itself cannot access private messages - a boon for users but a hindrance for law enforcement. Ultimately, organizations must resist creating backdoors, prioritizing the protection of data and customer privacy above all else.

Consumers should certainly be more concerned about hackers and identity theft than government terrorist suspect investigations. Consumers have more to lose than being a subject of government investigations. The government is not interested in hurting its citizens, and cyber criminals and hackers are more likely to cause damage to their victims. Victims of identity theft are more likely to experience financial and emotional tolls and physical and social tolls. Some of these tolls can manifest themselves in criminal records, damaged credit reports, tax debt, access to online portals, reputation damage, and more.

A government that fails to act to protect its citizens is a government that has neglected its most fundamental responsibility. The balance between individual privacy and national security is a delicate one, and it's a tension that can only be managed through careful consideration of the laws and regulations that guide our actions. When conducting investigations, federal agencies must ensure that their activities align with the core principles of our justice system and the Constitution. This means respecting the right to privacy and upholding the guarantee of due process for all US residents. In the context of cybersecurity, it's important to recognize that citizens have more to lose from cyber threats than from government surveillance. Rather than worrying about government overreach, we should be working together to address the real and present dangers of cyberattacks, which pose a significant threat to our personal information, our economy, and our national security. By prioritizing cybersecurity and upholding our constitutional values, we can create a safer and more secure nation?for?all.

The government must strike a balance between protecting its citizens and upholding constitutional rights. Federal agencies should prioritize transparency, legal soundness, and privacy respect in their actions. Meanwhile, citizens should prioritize cybersecurity awareness and best practices, recognizing that a secure digital environment benefits all and is a shared responsibility

References

11 Tips to Protect Consumer Privacy for 2019 National Cybersecurity Awareness Month. Tulane. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://sopa.tulane.edu/blog/11-tips-protect-consumer-privacy-2019-national-cybersecurity-awareness-month.

Johansen, A. G. (2021, February 4). 4 lasting effects of identity theft. Lifelock by Norton. Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://www.lifelock.com/learn/identity-theft-resources/lasting-effects-of-identity-theft.

National Academies Press. (2008). Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists. Washington DC.

UAHC. (2003, June). Civil Liberties and national security: Striking the proper balance. Union for Reform Judaism. Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/civil-liberties-and-national-security-striking-proper-balance.

Wong, L., & Lovelace, D. C. (2004, June 18). Homeland Security and Civil Liberties. Pennsylvania; University of Pennsylvania Law School.