User:Wsd3894

NSA Surveillance and Ethics
Government surveillance is not a new topic. Espionage is glamorized in movies and most people do not have any objections to gathering private information on who they consider to be the enemy, but the view on surveillance can change dramatically when you are the one who is under the microscope.

Ethics in the Communication Age. What is ethical? Are ethics and laws interchangeable and do they always support each other? Do public safety and the greater good override personal privacy? Who makes this determination? To what extent can the government go with surveillance before it is considered abusive towards a citizen's Constitutional rights? And, how much can private business are required to participate in government surveillance? These issues have been debated for different situations, but more recently the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program has been a controversial issue.

September 11, 2001 changed many things in our country. One of the issues that arose from this was the debate over warrantless surveillance by the NSA where one of the parties being surveiled could be a United States citizen. This program was put forth as a terrorist surveillance program. The NSA is authorized by executive (Presidential) order to monitor phone calls and other communication originating outside of the United States with either known or suspected ties to Al Queda even if the recipient of the communication is an U.S. citizen.

What is the definition of ethics? Ethics is defined as the study of right and wrong regarding human conduct. Specifically, an ethical theory referred to as relativism is what can be applied to this situation. Relativism denies the existence of universal moral norms and right and wrong are relative to society, culture, or the individual. The debate is not whether known or suspected terrorists who are not United States are being violated, even if that citizen is part of a terrorist network.

Are ethics and legal rulings interchangeable and do they always support one another? Not necessarily. Laws are rules and regulations that are made up of parts with the authority to enact these decisions. Laws can have loopholes and not all laws are considered fair or even right. Everything ethical is not necessarily ethical. The audience of the NSA surveillance controversy has more of a legal conclusion than an answer about it being ethics. In August 2007 warrantless wiretaps were legalized.

Who were the parties involved in making decisions regarding the NSA controversy? The president, the Republican party, the Democrat party, the attorney general, Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, various U.S. courts, foreign intelligence, surveillance court (FISC), the American Civil Liberties Union, attorneys (ACLU), private utility companies, and the general public.

Does public safety and the greater good override personal privacy? This is the debate. James H. Moore stares the reason for studying ethics in technology is to determine what should be done whenever there is a policy vacuum. The controversy revolves around whether the warrantless surveillance tapes violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which permits the President of his delegates to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Another contention is who has the authority to determine whether the surveillance is justified. Under Article II of the Constitution the President is the Commander in Chief. and can make military decisions. Congress also passed the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) after the 9/11 attacks which authorized the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations or persons that he determines planned authorized, committed, aided or harbored those involved in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which may help to prevent any future acts of terrorism. Those opposed to the stance that the President has the authority to make this determination argue that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make rules for the government and regulations of the land and Naval Forces to make laws regarding military and wartime issues. Those opposed also view the NSA surveillance as an infringement of the 4th amendment of no illegal search and seizure.

To what extent can the government go with surveillance? Little technological information is known as the NSA wiretaps. Since the technology is currently being used it is considered a breach of National Security if this is revealed. Other surveillance programs have been used in the past and we can take some of the technology that was used in play to garner on the idea of what the NSA surveillance is capable of. One such surveillance program was called Echelon. The technology for Echelon was as follows-out of 1 million generated inputs per half hour filters will keep only 6,500 inputs then forward 1,000 inputs that meet criteria. From the forwarded 1,000 ten are seized by analysts and then one report is made: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4.artikel/6/6929/1.html.

If the technology for the NSA surveillance is superior to Echelon as one can assume it is then exactly is it capable of. Even though it was decided that warrantless wiretaps were legal in this situation, this is where the subject of ethics enters. Everything would be fine if the potential for misuse or abuse was not present. If the strict guarantee that monitoring would only be used for the intended purpose of National Security then the fear over privacy invasion would not be as great. Unfortunately, those with power cannot always be counted on to do the ethical thing, even if what they are doing falls within legal parameters.

How much can private business be expected to participate in government surveillance? AT&T customers claim they had been damaged by AT&T cooperation’s with the NSA. AT&T allowed the NSA to intercept and analyze communications along with performing data mining functions from within the same building by AT&T in San Francisco. Companies such as Cingular Wireless, Comcast, Cox Communications, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile all stated they had not turned over any information to the NSA without being required by law. In response to feeling AT&T violated federal laws where it could be considered criminal for any person or company to aid in the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication unless specifically authorized by law, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco civil liberties organization, sued AT&T.

Conclusion: Ethics can be debated in many various forms. Even though warrantless surveillance was decided to be legal, the question of it being ethical has not yet been answered and likely will continue to be debated.

References

http://arstechnica.com/news

http://usatoday.printthis.clickablility.com

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ET/

http://albrechtslund.net/texts/ethicaltheoryandnewsurveillance.pdf

http://www.cnss.org/surveillance.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0502-04.htm