Skip to content
Subscribe

Government Transparency Doesn't Pierce the NSA

Published:

Source: http://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com

government transparency

The surveillance war rages on.

Last week, the NSA apologized for lying to the American people about its surveillance tactics. Now, the agency won't reveal whose information they harbor, even if a citizen asks for their own information. It would seem government transparency doesn't apply to the NSA.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives Americans the right to request information previously unreleased from the federal government. Enacted in 1966, it laid out the foundation of government transparency in relation to its citizens.

President Obama's Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government further bolstered the FOIA by claiming his administration's intent to "establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration." The memorandum does not provide any binding laws on this policy.

That's where the FOIA comes in. Any person, citizen or not, can formally request documents and information from the government as long the documents meet certain requirements. Documents that are exempt (read: classified) from being distributed include:

  • Documents stored in the "interest of national security"
  • Documents compiled for law enforcement purposes that, if released, would interfere with investigation proceedings or reveals a classified source
  • Documents outlining classified financial information
  • Any document that interferes with another's personal privacy

Why, then, is the National Security Agency exempt from this entire process? The justification comes from another document signed by the President: Executive Order 13526.

The order explicitly states an updated list of information eligible for classification, including "intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology."

Therein lies the dilemma: the NSA collected millions of Americans' information in a secretive manner. Therefore, all of our personal information is classified and cannot be distributed back to us.

Indeed, the NSA is absent from the list of agencies from which information can be requested. The files can remain in a classified state for up to 10 years, unless deemed exceedingly sensitive, in which case the duration is extended to 25 years.

In some ways, this is a relief. At least the NSA will not provide personal information to other civilians.

However, the truly disquieting implication of this ordeal is inherent in the fact that there currently are no laws in place requiring the NSA to tell someone if they are storing their information. Not only are citizens not privy to any information, they aren't even allowed to know if they are under surveillance.

An initiative to curb the mounting surveillance concerns has presented itself in an emergency petition to the Supreme Court. The Electronic Privacy Information Center is currently attempting to appeal to the court to discontinue the NSA's domestic phone surveillance program, arguing the secret court that approved the program did not have sufficient justification to allow the allocation of millions of phone records.

The program was approved in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a legal body enacted to monitor perceived foreign intelligence within domestic boundaries (read: sleeper cells and domestic terrorists).

So let's recap: the NSA is working under covert justification to store (or not store) millions of gigabytes of information under an act that was approved by a secret court designed to stave off foreign intelligence. Obama's transparency is beginning to look opaque.

Justified or not, the citizenry has a pertinent question to answer: How long can we sweep our concerns under the rug and live in a state of banality toward these issues?

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Government Transparency Doesn't Pierce the NSA

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us