The Effectiveness of Data Collection and Drone Strikes

John Raymond

            It seems that the necessity of drone strikes, and the NSA’s metadata collection program, is questionable at best.  Although both sure produce some results, their actual operational benefit is not clear.  First I will address the drone strikes, and then discuss the metadata surveillance program.

            The data from the New America Foundation seems to indicate that the drone strikes are essentially doing their job.  Civilian casualties number roughly 10% of the total deaths, and the number of militants killed numbers in the thousands.  Based solely on those numbers, the drone strike program is effective at killing militants and minimizing collateral damage.  But  there are a few problems with the conclusion that drone strikes are strategically effective and necessary.  Firstly, there is the obvious debate over the actual numbers.  Muhammad Idrees Ahmad points out inconsistencies in the NAF’s data and asserts that they are uncannily similar to official administration reports.  Additionally, he mentions examples of people believed to have been killed by drone strikes, who later reappear.   Ultimately, I do not think there will ever be an objective number, intelligence gathering methods are not perfect, and even if they were, the reported numbers can still depend on the particular organizations bias.  Secondly, it is unclear if the militants who are killed are even of high strategic value.  That information is likely harder to access, as well as classified.  Maybe they are bomb-makers or upper level commanders, or maybe they are of lesser importance but are simply a target of opportunity.  Furthermore, the fight against terrorism is not something that is won by killing everyone who poses a threat.  Blindly killing terrorists only serves to create more anger and animosity towards the US.  Even if the drone strikes mostly kill high-value targets, and with minimal civilian acts of violent imperialism on the part of the US, or create new hatreds of the US and its allies, are they actually productive?  Part of the issue is the number of people who dislike the US because of its foreign policy and actions around the globe.  Killing is not the solution to that aspect of the problem.

            In regards to the NSA data collection program, even Gen. Keith Alexander admitted that in only two situations did metadata collection prevent terrorist activities that would have otherwise continued.  Is it useful to some degree?  Surely it is, otherwise it would not exist.  However, Bergen and his associates make the argument that most of 50 odd cases cited, could have been accomplished without the use of the collection program.  I think what is most telling is Gen. Alexander’s testimony.  If it were the case that the collection program was absolutely vital to defeating most terrorist plots, he would have said so.  The metadata collection program is a tool in the intelligence toolbox, but the reason for the adamant support of it may be for reasons other than foiling terrorist plots.  Greenwald’s book alludes to presentations and documents, taken from the Snowden files, detailing the NSA’s desire to “collect it all” in order to assert dominance over the global economic and communication network.  It is very possible that the desire for the US to observe and be able to dominate other countries and non-US companies is in part the reason for having such programs in place.  If that is the case, that brings on another set questions: do economic dominance or other non-terrorism objectives justify these programs?  Are those things the United States should even be engaging in at all?  Is it necessary?  Is it morally permissible?   Although important, those questions lead us into a very different area of discussion.

Government Surveillance

The NSA uses their Bulk Collection Program to collect data on citizens and foreigners using telephone metadata. Many will argue that the data is used to protect us against attacks similar to 9/11. However, I believe that the telephone data should be limited because the collecting of telephone data on citizens violates our rights to unreasonable searches. I agree with the fact that measures have to be taken in order for us to protect the nation against enemies of the state. However, the method of collecting data in such a wide range is unconstitutional and should have more limitations. Also, according to studies by New America Foundation we saw that our traditional methods initiated majority of terrorism cases. If this is so then that means we should limit our use of data collection and minimize it to only have it necessary for telephone companies to transfer the data to the government if calls from overseas are made. In each instance, the call from overseas was a major deal breaker in finding whether a person was conducting acts of terrorism. Furthermore, we need to figure out policy wise which agency has the right to call for the data. The data seems to be shared across different federal agencies but none are acting swiftly enough for the use of the data collection to be meaningful. As a result, due to the lack of swiftness and wide range of unconditional data collecting, I find the program to be unconstitutional and goes against citizens rights to unreasonable searches.

Blog 6: Drone Effectiveness

Drone Strike Effectiveness

The theme of this weeks lecture and blogs are about the effectiveness of drones. Drones are a very controvercial topic in the United States and all around the world. People question drone strikes effectiveness based on many different comparisons. Death of civilians vs. militants, cost vs. benefit, moral vs. unmoral. These are all issues and counter issues that my peers as well as the public have with drone strikes. I think that we must do what it takes to stop terrorism and never allow another attack against our homeland at any cost. However, today, I am going to rid myself of these social biases and purely look at the numbers. I will break down the drone strike effectiveness over the course of time in 2 different countries. Furthermore i will dissect these different years in regards to different presidents. Lets start with the country of Pakistan.

Pakistan encountered its first drone strike in 2004 under the Bush Administration . From 2004-2007 the average number of strikes a year was about 2.5 Then in 2008 the number of drone strikes spiked drastically to 36 strikes. When Obama took over in 2009 the number of drone strikes began to rise dramatically, reaching a high peak in 2010 with a whopping 122 drone strikes, essentially a drone strike every 3 days in Pakistan. From there until 2014 the number of strikes has continuously gone done over time. These numbers only show that Obama did a significantly larger amount of strikes then bush did. Well if we look into these numbers we find some interesting information. Bush had a total of 48 strikes and killed about (lets just use the highest of civillian and militant numbers for study purposes) 141 civilians and 350 militants. Those numbers added together equals 491 people who have died under bush 48 strikes. 29% of the people who died under Bushs strikes were civillians. Lets look at Obamas numbers. Over the course of 346 strikes there were 166 civilians killed. (which is only 25 more then Bush and almost 300 more strikes *hint hint*) and 2,607 militants were killed. The division of that math comes out to 6% of civilians killed in 346 attacks which is almost 8 times the drone attacks of Bush.  The proof is in the pudding here. Clearly if you look at this information our drone strikes have become extremely effective, in regards to killing the enemy and sparing the innocent. Obamas administration has taking effectiveness to a whole new level. Obamas administration has issues 8 times the amount of attacks while keeping the number of casualties or civilians roughly at the same number as bush mere 48 strikes did. Not only has he kept the casually number down but sky rocketed the number of militants killed. Even more effective in 2013 and 2014 the number of casualties was almost nonexistent while we still  killed over 300 militants.

In Yemen the numbers are even more clearer. Apart from one drone strike in 2002, the Obama Administration was aiding Yemens forces fight terrorist forces. There were 117 strikes in Yemen most of which took place after 2011 when United states went to help. In these strikes there were about 1082 kills. Out of these 87 civilian (once again highest number) were killed. The number of civilians killed is about 8%.

My conclusion is as follows. The effectiveness of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen has increased significantly. However more proof in Pakistan because of two different administrations and a longer time span. The success rate of drone strikes under Obama totals out to about 92-94% success. By looking at these numbers its pretty effective. There are a lot of things that one could speculate about why this sudden rapid success rate saw such a sharp increase. My best guess is some sort of beak through in technology and training. It could be a rise in the number of strikes but i don't exactly know how or why that would keep the casualty numbers stabile. Im not in the military but i can do the simple math. A  93% success rate at the university of maryland gets you a 3.8 GPA and a great job after college.

Blog Post 6: Government and Corporate Surveillance

When discussing possible reforms and legislation to the current state of government and corporate spying, it must be taken into account that government surveillance is aided by corporate surveillance. Corporate surveillance has brought harm to American citizens because of what private companies have chosen to do with personal user data.

First off, it is indeed troubling how the NSA and other branches of the government have explained the collection of American citizens' personal user data. Greenwald goes into depth on this subject in Chapter 4 where he argues that state spying on U.S citizens under the guise of "national security"  has the undertones of an authoritarian surveillance state and raises serious questions about the treatment of dissidents and other marginal groups.  He also goes on to explain the psychological effects of the 'Panopticon', coming to a rather disturbing conclusion, in that the government does not have to actually watch everyone all the time in order to stifle political dissent and activism. Just the fear of being watched is enough.

But not only is the psychological threat worrisome-there is also a very tangible and physical menace.  It appears that private corporations like Google and Facebook have a documented history of misusing personal user data. Google, by collecting personal user data and giving access to it to shady corporate advertisers has allowed them to target “individuals with the express intent to rip them off, sell them deadly products, and financially impoverish them” (Newman).  Moreover, there is proof which reveals that Google played a significant role in the recent financial housing crisis, whereby ad companies targeted users based on their racial characteristics provided by Google. Newman writes that this “constitutes the most damaging price discrimination inflicting consumer harm in American history" for which Google was the intermediary and as a result made millions of dollars in profits. Newman goes on to say that Google explicitly ignored subpoenas and refused to cooperate with various investigations. Also, other companies, like Uber, show that there is the serious potential for abuse of user data: in a recent interview, Uber vice president Emil Michael hinted, rather bluntly, that he would consider using personal information data in order to blackmail journalists who have said unfavorable things about the company.

            In an era where the Internet has become an integral part of American’s lives, it is not possible to live with the same degree of privacy as we did before. It is also not conducive to a healthy democratic society for citizens to remain in the dark in regards to the actions of the government. Greenwald writes that "while the government, via surveillance, knows more and more about what its citizens are doing, its citizens know less and less about what their government is doing, shielded as it is by the wall of secrecy".  Not only has the government operated behind this shield of secrecy, the same can be said about private corporations, and perhaps to an even larger extent. It is a bit naive to think that true transparency and complete accountability will be ever be reached, but as a democracy it is imperative that the U.S should keep these ideals as a goal. It is crucial that there should be laws which outline the extent of corporate reach and protect citizens from the abuses of their personal user data by private companies and address not only the issue of the collection of private information, but also what is actually being done with this data. 

Blog Post 5

John Raymond

            As the internet continues to grow, both in breadth and detail, it seems that more, not less, of our private information will be farmed by companies, if not the government.  Although the surveillance programs carried out by the NSA are surely debatable, the fact of the matter is that those programs do operate within the confines of the law and are overseen by lawmakers.  Companies like Google, Facebook and the like, have been proven to have operated illegally in collecting user data.  With the more pervasive use of social media and online services, data collection by the companies providing those services is a more imminent breach of privacy than the data collection conducted by the NSA.

            The Huffington Post article describes how Google collected personally data illegally through the Wi-Fi networks of users, and even after they were caught, found ways around their court orders to continue monitoring internet use.  Internet based services are becoming more and more engrained into everyday life.  For instance, if using the money-transfer service Venmo to move more than $300, you have to either connect your Facebook account, or enter information including your birthday and the last four digits of your Social Security Number.  That is just one example of how online profiles are becoming a recognized piece of your online identity.  Unlike the NSA, who collects data to analyze national security threats (and maybe enhance US economic prosperity/dominance according to Greenwald’s book), companies like Google collect data to enhance their profits.  It seems a hypocritical to champion privacy, but also illegally collect the data of your users and then block legal actions to reveal what exactly was collected.

            Greenwald points out that many proponents of NSA data collection demonstrate the same hypocrisy.  However, the debate should not really be over what the NSA is doing, but what they are allowed to do.  As shocking as the data collection revelation is, it was not illegal, the laws the policies operate under (the Patriot Act, at least in part) are not secret.  The collection of metadata definitely merits debate, and I think Greenwald makes a very telling point when describing how protestors demanded Dianne Feinstein post her metadata for the public to see, if such information is not a breach of privacy.  The good news is, the NSA operates under a democratic government in which most legal proceedings are of public record, whether people or the media choose to pay attention to those records is another matter.  Currently, we live in an era where the United States exists in relative social calm compared to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.  Periods like those, with strong social and political dissent, will be the true test of surveillance programs and law enforcement.  That is when the definitions of “terrorist” or “security threat” can be bent to silence dissenters.  If the NSA are the “watchers”, then who is watching the watchers of the watchers?  The NSA has enough oversight that as an entity on a large scale, it won’t be able to act illegally, but what is preventing those who oversee the NSA from using it to act questionably?  It seems the best solution is for the public to inform themselves as much as possible, so they can make educated decisions on these policies, and which representatives support their views.  Ultimately, there will never be complete transparency regarding government actions, but that does not make the drive for more transparency wrong.

Blog Post 5

The Fourth Amendment Shell Game

The article that I will discussing for this week's blog post is The Fourth Amendment Shell Game written by Julian Sanchez of slate.com. The article discusses the new NSA reform proposed and enacted by president Obama. The NSA basically has an all access pass to all user data from all "electronic communication" from all types of services from telephone companies to social media platforms. In 1979, there was a court case Maryland vs. Smith in which the ruling was in favor of Maryland (the government) by taking records from a phone company claiming that using a public company means you are waiving your rights of privacy. The government has been using this ruling since the 70's to collect information on users from phone companies without the necessity of a higher standard for a warrant. Furthermore, as the technology changes, phone companies are using flat rate plans instead of individually billing clients which means the companies are collecting less information on its users on a call by call basis. The government now is mandating companies to collect this information which is a massive amount on the user, including location among other things in addition to the calls. I see a major problem with this on several different levels.

To start, I think it is extremely unlawful that companies that promise privacy are being surpassed by the United States government. When we sign up for a cell phone, a website, or even an app in the terms and conditions we are given a special right to privacy. Another problem i see with this massive gathering of personal information of massive amounts of people. In our day and age more and more people and companies are being hacked. Personal information, financial information, and other information is being stolen and used unlawfully. When the government is forcing the government to keep massive amounts of data it is potentially putting the public at risk. Another point that i would like to make is that in this day and age the government is essentially taking away your 4th amendment right if you want to survive or be of relevance to society. It seems almost impossible to be a functioning adult in the working world with out a cell phone or internet. It is almost impossible to go to school and be successful and studious without a lap top, cell phone or the use of the internet. (Look at the university of maryland, students can't even take this class without a lap top or internet). But the government is requiring internet providers and cell phone companies to give up all the information about our usage. It seems unfair and against the united states constitution.

Blog Post 5

Cyber crime is growing at a steady rate. Many companies are taking action by encrypting information such as phone calls so it would be harder for attackers to cypher the information. The use of encryption of our data limits data breaches. However, the United States wants companies to make it easier for agencies like the NSA to track individuals who are looked to be a threat to our national security. In this blog I will discuss how this will put companies and citizens at a more higher risk of data breach and how it violates our Fourth Amendment right. I will be the first to say that I agree that our government should play a major role in handling of threats of national security. However, the call for seizing our information is against our Fourth Amendment right to probable cause. The amendment violation can be a hard case to say is unconstitutional since most of the data collection happens secretly and is approved by secret courts. Also, they do not need probable cause if they receive information from a third party like internet companies. However, a lot of the data collected is domestic and as citizens of this great country we should not have our private information compromised especially since we are under an impression that our information is held private. The lack of communication to citizens of how their information is shared is a bit of concern. Most individuals are not aware of their information being collected and even if they are, they do not know to what extent. Also, on the technical side the making of information more available for government agencies can play a threat to cyber security for companies and citizens. Cyber threats are growing by the day and making data more accessible leaves an opening for black hats(evil cyber hackers) to retrieve our data.

Blog Post 5

Jessica Sensi

Blog Post 5

            In this day and age, privacy is very hard to achieve, however I do not think that The United States Government violates privacy through data collection. Mostly it is not violated because corporations already have this data and with the rise of the Internet, it is very easy to track the movement of people and what they are doing. The hindrance of privacy due to the rise of technology is inevitable and many “agree” to this hindrance by using the Internet.

            In his article, Ethan Zuckerman explains how corporations are using the Internet and surveillance to target ads to consumers. Telephone providers and Google have contracts with The United States Government in order to pass along our data in order to maintain national security. Many American citizens are upset with this because the corporations are using our information in order to make a profit, however, I don’t think there is anything wrong with giving our information to the government if it is being used to keep The United States safe, especially if the information is out there already. In terms of Facebook, people willingly put their information online. We check-in at places and set status updates that let our friends know what were doing and where we are. The whole premise of Twitter is to “tweet” what you're doing and what is on your mind at the moment. While bank statements are not posted on Facebook, most people are comfortable putting their information online, or sending it to others via cyber mail or other cyber pathways. With this rise of technology and the use of Internet, the reconceptualization of privacy is necessary. Many American citizens are angry because most of things done online lead to their data being collected by corporations, and in turn the government. However, there isn’t much privacy when you're using the Internet. As stated earlier, people spend a lot of their time shopping online, checking in on Facebook, and tweeting what they are doing. We use our credit cards online and search things on Google that say little things about us. Many argue that this is not something the Founding Fathers wanted, that the right to privacy is something that should be maintained and the government does not have the right to collect information about us. The right to privacy shouldn’t be eliminated, but it needs to be reconceptualized because of the times we are living in now. The Founding Fathers were not living in a time where technology was at the level that it is now. Privacy and the use of the Internet is a give and take and there needs to be a balance between them if national security is at stake.  

            On another note, even though mass data is being collected on people in The United States, the amount of data being collected makes it hard for corporations and even the government to look at each person individually. There is so much data that it is nearly impossible for them to sift through it all thoroughly. They wont be looking through the data pertaining to the everyday American citizen, but those who are suspicious. Because not all of us are being watched with a close and careful eye, our privacy isn’t being hindered. They are paying attention to potential threats to the country and its people, and while some of our information may be looked at, I don’t believe they do anything with it. Personally, I am okay with the bulk data collection because I believe it is not much to give up in order to maintain national security. Hasan Elahi touches on this fact during his TED talk. Elahi posts pictures of his life so that it is easy to see what he is doing and where he is at all times. They are posted on his website for all to see, and whenever they want. This shows how he took being detained and turned it into giving the federal government what they wanted. Elahi said, “By putting everything about me out there, I am simultaneously telling everything and nothing about my life.” This made me think a little as we do this everyday anyway through our social media, more or less he is posting pictures and this is what we do on Instagram. Instagram even has a map function where you can see where all your pictures were taken. His philosophy is that the more information you give, the more privacy you will have because the government won’t have to track you. I agree with him because soon people will give so much information while using the internet, that the United States wont have to collect all this data on us, and they will focus on those that are a threat.

Blog 4: Slow Poison of the Covert Image

In The Slow Poison of the Covert Image by Timothy Burke the issue of surveillance by the government is discussed. Burke discusses this topic in a very interesting way, Burke does not feel that the direct surveillance is the actual problem. He is fine with the idea of surveillance by the real trouble is the 2 effects the surveillance produces. He says that the government officials have created this image in their head that basically they have all this power about the information that they have gathered from surveillance. The government has all this mass information that they really can't sift through and use efficiently. Its like finding a needle in a haystack. This then leads use to the second problem. The people of the united states now have this fear and perception that the us government has all this power of surveillance and can use it against one whenever they want. This has caused people to think and act differently then they used to. I agree with Timothy Burkes idea that surveillance in itself is not the issues, its the effects it has on political leaders and the people that is the real problem. I do think that if the government really could use this information more efficiently the number of crimes per capita would drop dramatically. But because there is SO much information being gathered all at once its nearly impossible to sort and use properly. 

Others might say that that Timothy Burke is just being naive. One could say "who is Timothy Burke? What degree of knowledge of the efficiency of this surveillance can he possibly have?" To extent I would agree that we the people, including Timothy Burke, (unless he actually works for the government or has inside source) don't really know what exactly is going on. Timothy Burke quotes the NSA when they said "We are not really looking at content" he uses this quote to demonstrate that the NSA is basically using words that trick americans into thinking the government isn't looking into them, but actually they dont have the technology to do so.  Which leads back to the point of invoking  false fear of this program which leads to behavioral change. I think there is just too little information on what actually is happening with this surveillance its used, who is it used for, when and so many different questions that we can't answer to really see it in that positive in a light. All we can see is it in a negative light, in my personal perspective.

Blog Post 4: Data Collection

John Raymond

            The release of classified information by Edward Snowden and the ensuing revelations about NSA domestic surveillance programs sparked debate about the role of government, and what intelligence agencies should and should not be able to do in the name of national security.  Harris discusses the history of the surveillance programs, largely initiated by John Poindexter dating back to the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut.  However, what is more important than the history of surveillance is the future.  In recent years, the US has faced a more complicated, decentralized terrorist threat that sometimes is realized by only a handful of people carrying out violence.  Harris says that people should expect less privacy with the invention and increasing prevalence of the internet.  It does not follow from the invention of the internet that there should inherently be government intrusion into individual privacy.  However, as computing power and technology progress, intelligence agencies will be able to collect more information and in more detail (if they so choose).

            Unless there is real accountability and oversight into data collection programs, the American public is relying on the NSA and other organizations, who are preoccupied with defeating security threats, to carefully restrict their own abilities, or hold their analysts accountable for any misuse of collection abilities.  Those who enact and participate in these programs believe they are acting in the best interest of their country.  The public is forced to trust that their rights are being protected.   Timothy Burke points out the danger of this idea, that government by the people is being put to the wayside in the name of security.  The issue is, the terrorist threat does not seem to be decreasing, if anything, there seem to be more terrorist networks operating around the world with increasing operational proficiency.  Although idealistic discussions about the rights of citizens and governments run amuck with power, the reality is that such programs are a necessary evil.  As more personal information is being connected to and stored on the internet, the ability of intelligence agencies to delve into the lives of civilians will only increase.  The fact of the matter is unless another surveillance method is developed or the terrorist threat drastically decrease, data collection is an evil we will have to live with.  A realistic solution is not eradication of such policies, but Congressional oversight.

Blog Post 4: Domestic Surveillance and Fake Reform

When it comes to surveillance programs, it is my opinion that an interesting paradox has effectively taken place: one of “fake reform”, as Greenwald put it. Public outcries over domestic surveillance programs has not led to more transparency, accountability, democratic debate and subsequent policy changes but instead has resulted in these programs becoming even more obscured from the public view. To assuage public fears about its infringement on civil liberties, the government passed laws and adopted measures which were designed to do just that-stop the questions, and not fix the real problems at hand. In fact, these laws, like the 2008 FISA, have allowed the NSA to retain its spying abilities and have even served to increase its power.

The first instance which illustrates this point well is the debacle described by Harris concerning John Poindexter and his program, Total Information Awareness, or TIA. It appears to me, at least from the way that he was portrayed in Harris’ book, that Poindexter developed TIA out of a true desire to protect American citizens by tracking down terrorist networks. He had good intentions, but the program quickly grew beyond his scope of control. In 2002, the New York Times reporter Safire called the system “the perfect storm for civil liberties in America” (230), without actually taking the time to accurately understand and explain the full picture behind Poindexter’s mission. The media machine, as we know, thrives off of sensationalism, scandal, and emotion. Understandably, the public was incensed, and it did not matter that some facts were erroneous or that Safire “mischaracterized Poindexter’s intentions” (231). Instead of inviting public debate about the issue, or instituting some type of judicial review, government officials denied involvement and sought to divert attention from themselves by bringing up  Poindexter’s past.   

Poindexter was grilled by Congressmen and staffers, and the Iran-Contra affair was stirred up once again. Poindexter, according to Harris, “emerged as a caricature” (234), and private details about his life were published and mocked. Somewhere along the way, in their search for knowledge, the developers’ pure intentions became corrupted and convoluted. Harris writes that Poindexter had tried to initiate a debate about privacy controls and attempted to explain that TIA “would never be used to label someone a terrorist. Human analysts, law enforcement officials, and judges would have to make that call. TIA was just a tool” (237), but this never took hold. Not to be said that Poindexter was absolutely blameless, but he did become a scapegoat, a “lightening rod for Congress and the growing frustrations with the Bush administration” (236). In the end, the government officials and politicians involved seemed intent upon the task of stopping the public outcry, but not actually fixing the issue which caused it in the first place. Ultimately, the result was that TIA was re-named, re-located, and “buried deep within the massive Defense Department spending bill for the coming year, cobbled together by the powerful senators and staffers”(247).   The heart of TIA remained the same, and now it would grow even more powerful under the patronage of the NSA, which, in hindsight, seemed to have been the plan all along. Public outcry had brought about the opposite of the intended result: “an underground river of undisclosed billions flowing directly into spy agencies. It would carry the program formerly known as TIA. With a pair of obscure yet legally elegant sentences, Poindexter’s vision was given a second chance” (247).

Greenwald writes that the government has tried to calm fears by claiming that it does not spy on American citizens, or if it has, it was inadvertent and a mistake. Despite denials by the president and other officials, a closer look at the 2008 FISA law reveals that it essentially allows for a surveillance program with very little constraints on who it could actually spy on and how it could collect this information. Moreover, the FISA Court, which in theory was supposed to process and review requests for surveillance from the NSA,  was created not “as a genuine check on the government’s power but as a cosmetic measure, providing just the appearance of reform to placate public anger over surveillance abuses revealed in the 1970s” (128). Thus, the court, while helping to maintain the veneer of legitimacy, has approved over “twenty thousand requests” (128), and “has rejected just eleven government applications” (128). There is something very troubling about these developments: when instead of bringing about increased transparency, accountability, and a more equal balance of power, the government has become to resemble a one way street by shutting down any meaningful discourse and replacing it with the illusion of reform and democracy.

Blog Post 4

            Shane Harris said, “Since 9/11 there has been a tremendous tendency on the part of government to make things secret that do not need to be–They were labeling stuff ‘Homeland Security’ left and right.” I agree with Harris that the United States government tends to make most things secretive when they don’t have to be and they tend to label things as ‘homeland security’ when they are trying to further their agendas. This was clear when Edward Snowden leaked the NSA’s surveillance plans.

            In terms of surveillance and bulk data collection, the fact that it is being done should not have been a secret. If the government came forward and explained to the American public that they were making efforts towards watching people’s activities in order to track terrorist activity, I don’t believe it would have caused as much uproar as it did. The American right to privacy is very important to many, but the agencies that are collecting data on citizens’ personal lives are using it to make connections and monitor suspicious activity. Personally, I believe I have my right to privacy. Even though the government may have information on my emails, phone calls, or browser history, I believe it is a necessary evil that has to take place in order to maintain the security of our nation and its people. With the advancement of technology and the rise of the use of the Internet, people gave up their right to absolute privacy. In The Watchers by Shane Harris, it reads: “Could people reasonably expect the same level of privacy today as they did in an era without Internet? What were the new limits on its ability to spy on people in the name of protecting them” (Harris 375)? Harris tackles this concept in that he tries to understand why people are so willing to put pictures and their information online but so upset when the government collects this information themselves. The right to privacy is a fundamental American ideal, but there needs to be a balance in order to maintain the safety of the nation and I have always believed that if someone is not doing anything wrong, they should not worry about their data being collected.

The American public and many opponents of bulk data collection were outraged when Edward Snowden leaked what he came across at the NSA. Glenn Greenwald displays the information that Snowden leaked in No Place to Hide. This is a prime example of the government making things secretive that don’t need to be, and why it is a bad idea to do so. As stated earlier, the fact that the NSA was collecting bulk data was not something that had to be a secret. What could’ve been a secret or held confidential was the information of the people they were taking it from. Once Snowden released this information, the public was angry because this was kept a secret but I think that if they had been upfront about the procedures it would have been much more understandable and the public would favor the government’s efforts much more in the long run. The transparency (when able to be, it is understandable that specific actions and missions must be secret in order to effectively fight terrorists) will help the public reception of data collections and the relationship between the government and the American people.

The latter half of Harris’s quotation reminded me of the very first reading that we did by Arnold Wolfers. He discussed the ambiguity of national security and how many government officials and politicians are labeling their initiatives as ‘homeland security’ as if to create imminence. This constant labeling undermines debate and discussion and these things should still exist even with national and homeland security measures. Applying the term acts as an excuse to pass legislation or get approval for actions that would normally take some time and debate. Agendas and initiatives don't have to be secretive and using the terminology regarding national security should not be used as a means to make things this way either. 

Blog Post 3: Drones and Democracy

John Raymond

            The past two days of readings and lecture have covered multiple topics that are worth discussing further, but I am going to focus on the use of drones and the implications, or lack thereof, for democracy.  Peter Singer outlines some important points about the use of drone warfare and how it is causing a circumvention of the political process used for making decisions about war.  At face value, Singer’s arguments seem to have some valid points, but Carpenter’s article in which he discusses said points, reveals that what Singer is highlighting are not necessarily drone specific issues, but a more general trend in the political decisions surround warfare.  Moreover, Carpenter also mentions the statements that Singer makes that sound reasonable, but should not necessarily be taken at face value without further investigation.  By taking Singer’s argument at face value, without further analysis, the reader will unduly place importance on drones as a tool and assign consequences to drone use that should not be assumed.

            Firstly, Singer asserts that the use of drones inherently causes war to be viewed in a manner that is different than traditional conflict, and is not treated with the same gravity due to the absence of risk to US personnel during drone strikes.  He says that despite the lack of US casualties in drone strikes, or personnel on the ground, there are still things being destroyed and people being killed, therefore, drone strikes should receive more consideration and be brought into the political realm to be debated and decided on.  I would agree that drone strikes should be given serious thought and treated with the same importance as deploying troops into combat.  However, Carpenter and I both disagree that the circumvention of traditional political policies regarding war initiation are caused by the use of drones themselves.  Carpenter quotes another writer, saying that Congress and the President should be held accountable for the executive use of continued drone strikes, without Congressional approval.  The same issue could be brought about by the use of cruise missiles, conventional airstrikes, or the use of small special operations teams.  The tool is not the issue; it is the manner in which they are used that should be addressed.  There is no reason continued drone strikes could not be treated with the same gravity, and Congressional oversight, as “traditional” war.

            Additionally, Carpenter mentions Singer’s claims that drone strikes and other stand-off weapon systems make conflict easier and more likely, and that the public would then be more willing to agree to the use of such weapons.   In my previous blog post, I mentioned the movie “Ender’s Game”, and how Ender was willing to destroy the enemy planet because he believed he was engaging in a simulation.  Although in the movie, Ender was more likely to kill because he believed it was not real, the same conclusion does not necessarily follow for drone strikes.  Although it initially seems like a plausible claim, there is no reason that drone strikes intrinsically mean devaluation of human life and the moral weight of combat.  In order to make such claims, data would need to be collected, and other factors controlled for.  Carpenter also discusses the point that governments can and do deceive their citizens into agreeing to war, the minimal risks that are associated with drone strikes are unimportant if the government could simply lie about the risks associated with a more traditional conflict.  Like Singer’s point about stand-off weapons leading to more conflict, this too seems like a reasonable idea, but is something that warrants actual evidence in order for a reader to put faith in it.

Blog 3

This topics blog post i a very interesting issue. It seems that there many people in this world such as Singer feel that Obama is overtly scheming his way around congress related to war. One point that is talked about is that it is necessary for congress to declare war and that the use of drone strikes is circumventing war. Congress already declared a war on terror. The increased use of drone strikes with out the permission of congress is not circumventing the moral or common law. I believe that Obama should tedious address congress 48 hours before the deployment of troops. These are American, human lives that are being at stake. The use of drone strikes however, is an entirely different ball game. As we have read in other articles (which i  will cover later) drones are using long tedious 24/7 surveillance over enemy targets and houses. There comes a moment in these surveillance missions where we have the opportunity to strike. I don't really think Obama has the time to go and consult congress before taking the oppportunity to take out a terrorist leader. If the situation required Obama to get a congress vote the opportunity window could disappear. Additionally, I believe the is no change to this rule simply because of the reason i just said as well as many reasons that the "democracy" of the United States doesn't understand. However, I do think there is a solution to this problem that could help the Congressman feel like the President isn't underming their control or power. Establishing a comittee of officials from each branch of the military as well as an elected group of congressman to form some sort of military quick action voting comite for strikes like this could be helpful. In this situation we could have each branch have a representative as well as members of congress that were voted by the democracy to represent the people. This comitte would be on call 24/7. It benefits both parties in that Obama could make swift action decisions and the democracy would have a representation by their elected officials. 

The next topic I think that needs to be addressed is the PTSD. I think that more govermental programs and protocols need to be enacted for helping the drone command pilots. More regulation of drone pilots should be implemented. For example, the maximum number of hours flown in a row or the amount of strikes a pilot can execute in a certain time frame. I think the impact of war is severly overlooked when referring to drone strikes. I too, fall under the blanket of this problem. Although we don't have men on the ground killing people, they still are killing people. I recently, read a long article on PTSD and its effects it can have on ones self, family and friends. We far too overlook the drastic effects of drone pilots and i believe because it is become more common we must act swiftly.

Blog Post 3: Military Mindset and Civilian Protection

Drone use is becoming more needed in our military sector. As a child of a military member, I have witnessed the effects of having family members abroad at the risk of being killed. The effect of military life plays a tragic role in many peoples lives as many tend to suffer from depression and even injury. The stressful scenario of the military is shown in the article discussing pilot stress and how they have to grasp the idea of killing someone or watch them get killed.

The stress of being a pilot for the drone needs to be under certain policies. The FAA holds the power in regulating drones but much effort needs to be implemented in regulating drones used in war. Drones are looked be fun and friendly as many individuals are able to buy them as presents including the popular drone called the Phantom. However, members of our armed forces play a more serious role in producing strikes using drones. As we grow closer to a more robotic warfare era, we need to address policies that produce guidelines on when it is appropriate to implement drone strikes. Policies need to be implemented on who can become a pilot of the drones as we grow more accustomed to this military practice. The article states that the Air Force, who implements many of the drone strikes, tend to recruit individuals who are family oriented. This comes to no surprise in the increase of stress as many of the pilots have children and may be called to employ missions that include killing young individuals. The sense of responsibility puts in risk of civilians and calls for action.

As a proposal, we should implement a plan that requires all individuals who operate drones to obtain a license. The license shall be obtained by completing a regulation test that requires knowledge of unmanned aircraft and agreement of use. Also, Congress should create a organization that oversees drone strikes made from abroad. More consideration of abroad actions should be implemented because we do not want drone strikes that may cause harm to civilians to decrease our chances of finding peace with our allies.

Blog Post 3: Democracy and Drones

            The proliferation of UAVs, namely drones, in the U.S campaign against terror has sparked much debate from various critics. Eric Blanchard, in his work “Feminism and International Relations”, writes that “revolution in networked technology has transformed the way advanced societies conduct war and make peace”. Many supporters and opponents of drones have zeroed in on the way that the use of drones has been handled by the current administration, Congress, and the CIA.  Peter Singer, author of the article “Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”, has argued that with the changes in the nature of military technologies, a change in our democracy has taken place as well.

            Congress, the branch of government given the power to declare war, has not officially done so since World War II; instead, power has become concentrated in the hands of the President, who has authorized drone strikes without informing Congress. In Pakistan, moreover, the drone strikes have not been conducted by the U.S military, but rather by the CIA. As a result, this transition has affected “everything from the strategy that guides it to the individuals who oversee it (civilian political appointees) and the lawyers who advise them (civilians rather than military officers)” (Singer). Since there has been no need to place boots on the ground, the President has not had to seek approval for actions which have not placed any U.S soldiers’ lives at risk. Citizens who historically have borne the brunt of the "economic and human costs" inherent to the traditional ways of waging wars and military operations, have now been practically removed from the equation. From a physical cost perspective, this appears to me to be a positive development. On the other hand, it seems that these covert actions have flown mostly under the radar of the public; furthermore, in the seven years since the operation in Pakistan has been going on, it  “has never been debated in Congress…there has not even been a single vote for or against it” (Singer).

            Yet, I do not think that it is drones, as in the actual weapons, that lie at the root of the issue. As Joshua Foust points out, drones in themselves are not "good" or bad"-rather, they are a tool, a piece of technology. What matters is the way that they are used by the U.S, as well as the processes surrounding their use.  This idea is succinctly summarized by Charli Carpenter, who writes that "'drones' are not problems in themselves but have become a synecdoche for a broader tension between the current security environment and the legal frameworks through which we’re accustomed to thinking about and legitimizing war".  Based on current trends, I am quite certain that drones are here to stay. It is time to reevaluate the overwhelming authority that has been given (or rather, taken by?) to certain agencies and political figures in our society.  It is time to invite public debate, and to work toward greater transparency in our system and a legal structure which adequately addresses the new advances in technology and warfare. Sandra Harding, a proponent of Feminist Critical Theory, writes, “our cultures make assumptions and have agendas that we as individuals cannot easily detect”. This quote serves as a reminder that our role as citizens should be to remain involved in the debate, to analyze and question, and to be aware of  the political biases and propaganda which have existed around the national security issue in our society and which have been used to the advantage of those in power.  

Blog Post 3

Jessica Sensi

Blog Post 3

            The use of drones and autonomous warfare has allowed the act of waging war to become much easier, and in turn diminish principles of American democracy. The executive branch, or the president, is the commander-in-chief and has the power to make any calls he deems necessary. However, Congress has the power to declare war and this separation of powers is part of the checks and balances system to ensure that no one branch of government gains too much power. Because Barack Obama makes most calls regarding targeted killing and autonomous warfare, there isn’t much debate in Congress concerning this type of warfare. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress at least 48 hours in advance that he will be committing armed forces to military action. This doesn’t seem to happen, as the use of autonomous warfare is almost instant upon the President’s call or those who are piloting them at bases across the country. Because it is so easy to take a shot, it seems silly to have to get approval from Congress.

Throughout his term, Barack Obama has notified Congress of times when he has sent humans or combatants to these places to fight, which is the right thing to do, but drone use has become much more common and I think that there should be a notification requirement before using them. When writing the War Powers Resolution, there wasn’t a distinction or clarification regarding whether or not attacks had to consist of people or not, but I don’t think it should. Since this type of warfare is becoming much more common, it will be used in more confrontations and it will become the new reality of war. Singer talks about this in the New York Times article we read and he explains how this lack of “a check” that is supposed to take place causes the government to seem to have more power within the executive branch. This is a huge part of why some people are opponents of drone use. The government claims it is fighting for American ideals and values; however, there is a lack of the basic democratic principle of separation of powers.

            On another note, Singer explains that there isn’t much transparency within the government surrounding their use of drones. It isn’t being debated throughout Congress, and there isn’t much information being given to the American people from the government, specifically explaining missions. There isn’t enough transparency and this is a key aspect of a democratic regime. Throughout news outlets, there is much debate, however I think the American people deserve more information from the government including what the missions are, how they are being executed, and how they are establishing their targets. I think this information will allow for more debate and in turn, more opinions and voices will be heard. I know personally that I would be more open to be part of the debate if I knew much more about the actions the government is taking regarding their use of autonomous warfare. Right now, people are making a lot of assumptions because of this lack of information.