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.