No Strings Attached? 

The NSA is doing what Google does. Why is that a story?

An old journalism saw goes like this: Dog bites man, no story. Man bites dog, story. Allow me to update it. Government monitors email and telephone calls for national security, no story. Government doesn’t do anything of the kind — now, that’s a story.

Clearly some awfully good newspapers and some awfully good reporters disagree. In the past couple of weeks, it’s been raining stories about what the busybody government has been up to. The National Security Agency has been monitoring telephone calls and emails — and even social media stuff of the sort you shouldn’t have been doing anyway. To this, a whole lot of people have expressed shock. Oaths to the Fourth Amendment have filled the air. Unreasonable searches are simply unconstitutional, they assert — without asserting that anything has in fact been searched or seized. It has merely been noted and, if suspicious, referred to a court for the appropriate warrant.

click to enlarge google_.jpg

The programs certainly can be abused. (So can local police powers.) But oddly enough, proof that this has not happened comes from the self-proclaimed martyr for our civil liberties, Edward Snowden, late of Booz Allen Hamilton, the government contractor that ever-so-recently employed him. (I assume he’ll be summoned to HR.)

In a remarkably overwrought interview conducted by the vainglorious Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian, Snowden cited not one example of the programs being abused. Greenwald wrote that Snowden “lines the door of his hotel room with pillows to prevent eavesdropping” and that “he puts a large red hood over his head and laptop when entering his passwords to prevent any hidden cameras from detecting them.” Greenwald said that “Snowden will go down in history as one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers.” I think he’ll go down as a cross-dressing Little Red Riding Hood.

Greenwald likens Snowden to Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers to The Washington Post and The New York Times more than four decades ago. Not quite. The Pentagon Papers proved that a succession of U.S. presidents had lied about their intentions regarding Vietnam — Lyndon Johnson above all. In 1964, he had campaigned against Barry Goldwater for the presidency as virtually the peace candidate while actually planning to widen the war. As the Times put it in a 1996 story, the Pentagon Papers “demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance.”

In contrast, no one lied about the various programs disclosed last week. They were secret, yes, but members of Congress were informed — and they approved. Safeguards were built in. If, for instance, the omniscient computers picked up a pattern of phone calls from Mr. X to Suspected Terrorist Y, the government had to go to court to find out what was said. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established a court consisting of 11 rotating federal judges. These judges are the same ones who rule on warrants the government seeks in domestic criminal cases. If we trust them for that, why would we not trust them for other things as well?

Whenever I see “Hello, Richard” on my computer screen, I realize what’s happened: It knows me. It knows what I bought and when I bought it and where I was at the time. It knows my sizes and my credit card number, and if it knows all that, it knows pretty much everything. I long ago sacrificed a measure of privacy for convenience. One click will do it.

I also made the same sort of deal for security. I assumed the government was doing at least what Google was doing — and Google, I’m convinced, is the new Santa Claus: It sees you when you’re sleeping, it knows when you’re awake. It knows when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness’ sake. In 2009, Google’s Eric Schmidt put us all at ease by telling CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” See, not all billionaires are so smart.

Everything about Edward Snowden is ridiculously cinematic. He is not paranoiac; he is merely narcissistic. He jettisoned a girlfriend, a career, and, undoubtedly, his personal freedom to expose programs that were known to our elected officials and could have been deduced by anyone who has ever Googled anything. History will not record him as “one of America’s most consequential whistleblowers.” History is more likely to forget him. Soon, you can Google that.

Richard Cohen writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

Favorite

Comments (6)

Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
    • MS-13 For Dummies

      The backstory on the gang that’s being used to incite fear of Hispanic immigrants.
    • Spun City

      Elvis, the Patron Saint of pop culture and Poplar Avenue, has left the building.

Blogs

We Saw You

Military Masquerade, Maciel's Highland, The Gray Canary

Hungry Memphis

Beer Bracket Challenge, Round 2

Blurb

Tayari Jones Reading at the Orpheum

Hungry Memphis

Muddy's Bake Shop Turns 10

Tiger Blue

Tigers 91, #23 Houston 85

Intermission Impossible

Dead in the Water: New Moon's "Eurydice" is wet and wonderful

Politics Beat Blog

Alexander Touts Tax Bill, Offers Proposals on Guns and Immigration

News Blog

Memphis Pets of the Week

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Richard Cohen

Readers also liked…

ADVERTISEMENT
© 1996-2018

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation