Mass Surveillance: Is Online Privacy a Myth?

 
By Asmithaa Vinukonda 
 
“If the Executive [Branch] chooses to take it upon itself to ignore the Constitution and 
the laws Congress has passed, we have no recourse and our democracy is in peril.” 
 
At first glance, Nancy Hollander may look like your average 74-year-old woman; a 
professional grandmother with plenty of stories to tell. But when she shares her 
opinions on our democracy, she knows what she’s talking about. An accomplished 
criminal defense lawyer today, Hollander was arrested for “disorderly conduct” three 
times during her college days while protesting. During her time as the executive 
director at the New Mexico chapter of the ACLU, Hollander learned that the 
government had inquired into her own background and finances. After trying to reach 
out to the government agency (and not getting any straight answers), she filed a 
Freedom of Information Act request that returned a large storage box filled with 
material collected from her time as an activist. Later in her career as a lawyer, 
Hollander accused the government of monitoring her phone calls and emails with her 
clients, violating the Fourth Amendment and attorney/client privilege. The 
government continued to monitor her, even after she knew about it. 
 
She is not alone.  
 
Many individuals, organizations, and even members of government branches have 
been monitored by the US government. Even important figures such as Martin Luther 
King Jr., John Lennon, members of the women’s liberation movement, and members 
of the anti-Communist John Birch Society were monitored and labeled as possible 
threats to the nation. 
 
Although there are many government agencies that tracked people before (like the 
FBI and CIA), there is one agency that is the driving force behind the surveillance of 
electronic communications today. President Harry S. Truman created the National 
Security Agency (NSA) in 1952 for global monitoring, collection, and the processing of 
information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. In 
other words, the NSA specializes in a discipline known as signals intelligence.  
 
This would not be an issue if the NSA only monitored people who had targeted or 
have shown signs of wanting to target the United States. However, around the year 
2000, the NSA began to do mass surveillance in the United States and beyond. This 
not only targeted dangerous individuals and organizations but also collected 
information on innocent people, like Nancy Hollander, me, or you! 
 
But how do they do it? 
 
There are two main ways they collect data. One way is working with the companies 
that run these systems and tapping into the cables that are vital for moving all this 
information around. Then, they take the data and store it in gigantic computer 
databases. Their other option is using their relationships with technology companies 
to get hold of things like emails, messages, or other information straight from their 
servers. One of these technology companies is Verizon, who (under a court order), 
handed over data from millions of phone calls of its users to the FBI, who turned the 
data over to the NSA. Verizon was forbidden to tell anyone, including its users, about 
the exchange. 
 
After they collect the data, the NSA sifts through the information they collect. They do 
discard most of the information they collect after about three days unless it is about 
one of their targets. Metadata (who sends a message, who it was meant for, when it 
was sent, etc.), however, is stored for much longer. In the UK it is stored for a month, 
but in the US it can be stored for a year or more. This allows the agencies to build up 
a profile of individuals, such as who knows who, who talks to who, and where people 
are if needed. 
 
Many questions arose about why the government needs to do this in the first place. 
According to government officials, these programs help keep us safe from terrorism 
and to develop targets that may harm you and the people you love.  
 
But do they? Are we really safer than we were before? 
 
Questions like these are inevitable, even more so when it comes to how far their 
abilities go. So, how far can they go in terms of tracking? 
 
The truth is, there is almost no end to government surveillance. The government can 
make any effort at communications security futile. They can track you from a hotel, a 
restaurant, out in the street, or even your home. They can tap into your phone calls, 
read your messages, or even turn on your camera or use your phone as an 
eavesdropping device. All without you even noticing.  
 
In other words: “If they want to get you, over time they will.” 
 
Or so says Edward Snowden, the whistleblower behind the NSA mass surveillance 
leaks. Snowden was an infrastructure analyst for the NSA until 2013 when he realized 
that the things the NSA was doing should be known by the public. He resigned and 
flew to Hong Kong, where he published 9,000 to 10,000 classified documents, a 
fraction of the 1,100,000 documents he scanned. Without Snowden, we wouldn’t know 
about mass surveillance, and I wouldn’t be writing this article right now. After flying 
to Hong Kong, Snowden was interviewed by Glenn Greenwald, a journalist, 
constitutional lawyer, and author. Greenwald was also the first person Snowden 
reached out to in order to release the documents. 
 
It was vital that Snowden leaked the documents because this was not the first time 
online tracking had happened. After 9/11, security efforts peaked as officials rushed 
to correct the mistakes that could have prevented the hijackers. These security 
privileges have been given to some agencies, who could easily abuse this power. 
Before 9/11, agencies targeted suspects and then collected information on them. 
Now, agencies collect information in bulk and then search through it before 
determining their uses. This directly violates the privacy of the people. 
 
In 2014, the CIA spied on a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence 
Committee to prepare its report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program. 
This caused much outrage among the Senate members, most of whom were generally 
supportive of the intelligence community. Senator Saxby Chambliss, for example, was 
enraged, calling for the CIA employees to be “dealt with very harshly”.  
 
I want you to think for a moment. If intelligence agencies spied on members of the 
Senate, who will they spare? 
 
Now, we come to the vital question. Why is mass surveillance a concern? 
 
According to Snowden, “It was never about terrorism. Surveillance is about control.” 
 
Mass surveillance is a clear violation of our constitutional rights. More specifically, a 
violation of both the First and Fourth Amendment.  
 
But how?  
 
In the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution states, “...no Warrants shall issue, but 
upon probable cause...particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
persons or things to be seized.”  
 
In other words, no one can be searched without a warrant. But that’s exactly what the 
NSA and other agencies are doing. They are seizing our data without a warrant, which 
is a clear violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. 
 
Our First Amendment Rights are an assortment of things, but the most resonating is 
our freedom of speech and protection against censorship. This may seem like a 
completely unrelated right, but I want you to think. Now that you know what the NSA, 
the CIA, and the FBI do, how does this affect your use of electronics? How does this 
affect the way you talk to your family, your friends, or even your employer or 
teacher? Will you ever communicate with them the same, now that you know the 
government may hear your every word and watch your every move?  
 
This is what mass surveillance does. There is no evidence to prove that it protects us. 
But it changes the way we talk and behave online. It changes the way we look at our 
devices, like they are eavesdropping on us every second. And it changes the way we 
think about our government. 
 
It has been five years since Snowden exposed the mass surveillance of the NSA. As we 
continue to find out more about it, along with spying by the CIA and collection of 
data by the FBI, one question rises above the others: 
 
Will we ever have complete privacy online?